Windrush Compensation Scheme (Expenditure) Bill

Priti Patel Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Money resolution & Programme motion
Monday 10th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

I beg to move, That the Bill now be read a Second time.

Members of the Windrush generation came to the United Kingdom to rebuild Britain after the war, and they have contributed so much to our country, our economy and our public services. It is no exaggeration to say that we would not be the nation we are today without the men and women who came here to build a life, to work hard, to pay taxes and to raise families. They included nurses and midwives, and their overall economic contribution helped to rebuild post-war Britain. That is why the whole country was shocked by the unacceptable treatment of some members of the Windrush generation by successive Governments over a significant number of years. They are people who have done so much for our country and who had in some cases arrived on these shores when little more than infants, yet they were effectively told that they were not welcome.

This was a terrible mistake by successive Governments, and the implications will be felt for many years. Some suffered tremendous hardship and indignity as a result of an erroneous decision. They were denied a right to work, or to rent a place to live. Some individuals were even detained or removed, leading to families being broken up and left without parents or grandparents, and it is only right that those who have experienced hardship as a result are offered proper compensation. No amount of money can repair the suffering and injustice that some have experienced, and this Bill is therefore a vital and important step in righting the wrong, but there are still many issues to be addressed.

The Windrush compensation scheme was formally launched on 3 April 2019, and it was designed to ensure that full and proper compensation could be made. The scheme rightly includes a personal apology to each person issued with the award of compensation and, most importantly, it allows those who suffered to avoid court proceedings in the pursuit of justice.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The explanatory notes for the Bill show the full scale of this scandal, and state that the estimated compensation cost based on 15,000 claimants would range from £120 million to £310 million. The Home Secretary was not in the Chamber for my question to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), a few moments ago when I said that the wider issues with the immigration system and the failings of the Home Office, including unlawful detentions and deportations, are also costing millions of pounds. Will she commit to publishing the full cost of the wrongful deportations, outside the Windrush scheme, over the past few years and put that information before the House, so that we can see what has been going on in her Department? She is refusing to give that information at the moment.

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman has raised some significant issues here. We are still waiting for the lessons learned review from the independent—

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

When will it be published?

[Priti Patel]

If the hon. Lady will let me finish instead of jumping up in such a way, I will answer her question. [Interruption.] Let me just state this, and I will answer her question if she will bear with me. The lessons learned report has yet to be submitted to Ministers in the Home Office by the independent adviser, Wendy Williams. That is not a shock to anybody, and it is right that she should have the time to undertake her review. It is a fact that the review has been going on for two years, but she will bring it forward in due course and I will receive it when it is ready. It is fair to say—I do not think anybody can question this right now—that we want to know the full scale of what has happened and the background to it, and that is the purpose of the review. At the right time, we will be able to look at everything in the round. If I may say so, this is not about publishing pieces of evidence at this stage. It is important that we look at everything. The report will come to me once Wendy Williams has had the time and space to consider everything, because this is an independent review. It is not for the Home Office to dictate anything around that report. We will wait for that, and then of course we will look at everything that is required.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank the Home Secretary for giving way. I know she is impatient with my impatience, but I am speaking on behalf of constituents of mine who died while waiting for their compensation. They were promised that compensation before they died, and their relatives are still unclear about whether any of this is ever going to be resolved. That is why I am impatient. Can she even tell us how many people have died while waiting for their compensation to be settled?

[Priti Patel]

Let me say a few things to all hon. Members about not just the compensation scheme but Windrush. Many of us, including me, have made representations to the Home Office on behalf of our constituents. That is a fact and we have all worked constructively in doing so. The hon. Lady mentions being impatient. If I may say so, these cases are complicated, as I am sure she recognises. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is shaking her head, but the cases are complicated in terms of the provision of information, background, data and evidence, and this will take time. [Interruption.] They are complicated cases. They have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. This is not about providing a carte blanche assurance or a cheque to people. It is right that there is due process. We want to get this right and I make no apology for that.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

rose—

[Priti Patel]

I have given way already. If I can just finish, it is important that we do this in the right way, provide the right amount of time and ask people to work with the Home Office to find whatever evidence is required.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Home Secretary for giving way. Some of the cases are, indeed, complicated, but does she agree with me and many of my constituents with whom I have spoken, that her Department has overcomplicated the issue? As she said at the beginning of her speech, we cannot put a value on some of these things. The approach being taken is arbitrary, but she could apply discretion and make it a lot simpler

[Priti Patel]

It is a fact that this is not about money. Money cannot compensate for the awful experience and hardship that people have been affected by. We should be very clear about that. [Interruption.] An hon. Lady says, “It helps.” There is a scheme and a process, which I will come on to as I make progress with my speech. It is right, however, that we have the right process, and I will explain how we will do that. We should never lose sight of the fact that this scheme has been established. It is difficult but there are ways in which we are going to make this simpler, undo some of the bureaucracy and make swift progress with some of the cases that have been raised.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

A moment ago my right hon. Friend used the word “mistake”, and I think it is right to remind ourselves that the Windrush scandal was not a conspiracy but a cock-up of the most enormous magnitude. Will she confirm that she is confident that her Department and ministerial team are now fully on top of these kinds of issues so that that sort of scandal will not happen again?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend raises issues that go right to the heart of what happened in the Windrush scandal. No Government would want to preside over something so scandalous, and there has to be recognition that responsibility was attributed to successive Governments. It is right that we wait for the review from the independent adviser, Wendy Williams, which will have lessons for us all, including the Home Office and previous Governments. I think it will have plenty of information about what happened. We want to build on that and make sure that we learn the lessons.

Many of the comments made thus far have reflected on the compensation scheme and its complexities and design. I will now focus on its design. The Home Office’s first priority was to ensure that the scheme was accessible to claimants. In doing so, it has considered some 650 responses to the call for evidence and nearly 1,500 responses to the public consultation. The Home Office held several public events across the country to give potential claimants the chance to make their voices heard. Martin Forde QC, himself the son of Windrush parents, has a wealth of experience and complex knowledge of public law and compensation matters, and he was appointed by the then Home Secretary in May 2018 to advise on the scheme’s design. Late last year, Martin and I launched the Windrush stakeholder advisory group and met key stakeholders and community representatives to hear their personal testimonies and views. Ministers and civil servants will rightly continue to work with them, and they will continue to listen to those who have been affected to ensure this scheme works for them. Their personal views and considerations have been taken into account in the development of this scheme, and the House should note that the views of stakeholders have been instrumental to its design. That is why, last week, the Home Office announced the scheme will be extended by two years so that people will be able to submit claims up until 2 April 2023.

The Home Office also announced amendments to migration policy to apply a more flexible approach to the cases under review, and rightly so. The Home Office will now consider all evidence provided on the steps an individual will take or has taken to resolve their situation, which is an important change.

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

The Home Secretary is being generous in giving way.

I welcome the extension for applications to the scheme, but the Home Secretary will be aware that, nearly two years ago, the Select Committee on Home Affairs also recommended a hardship scheme. We were concerned that, in practice, this compensation scheme would take too long for many people who are in urgent need of compensation and some sort of support following these shocking injustices. Our report mentioned four people: Anthony Bryan, Sarah O’Connor, Hubert Howard and Judy Griffith. Shockingly, two of them have still had nothing, despite facing great hardship, and the other two died before they could get any compensation or hardship support at all.

Will the Home Secretary urgently consider a hardship scheme, as well as a compensation scheme, because this affects too many people? I have been contacted about someone today who is currently homeless and still struggling to get any support at all. Will she look at these cases urgently to see what hardship support can be given?

[Priti Patel]

I will look into those cases. Of course we have the exceptional payments scheme, which should stop anybody falling through—such people should receive those payments.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was interested to read the updated impact assessment, which reduces the assumption that there will be 15,000 claims to 11,500 claims. Will the Home Secretary explain why that is the case and whether the Bill will cover the 160,000 Commonwealth citizens who could be affected, to which the Public Accounts Committee drew attention last year?

[Priti Patel]

The numbers were reduced in the impact assessment due to the fewer-than-anticipated claims thus far. I will come on to Commonwealth citizens because, of course, this is not specific to Caribbean nationals.

Even though time has elapsed since individuals may have effectively been caught up in the Windrush issue—experiencing hardship, losing their job and, in some cases, also losing their home—I will, as I said to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), look into any specific cases that hon. Members would like to raise with me. Our changes may help some people to qualify for a potentially higher award, particularly where it relates to the loss of employment.

“Windrush” has been used to describe what happened to a specific group, but that term and this scheme are not limited to those of Caribbean nationality. The scheme, of course, is open to anyone of any nationality who arrived and settled in the UK before the end of 1988, and to anyone from a Commonwealth country who arrived and settled in the UK before 1973. The scheme is also open to the children and grandchildren of Commonwealth citizens who arrived and settled before 1973, and to other close family members of such a person who may have been affected. In the cases of those who sadly passed away before compensation could be paid, a claim can be made by their estate.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I welcome the steps my right hon. Friend is taking in this Bill. Will she outline how the measures she has just described are going to be widely publicised, to make sure that everyone who might be entitled to claim under this legislation knows about it?

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I will come on to this issue, primarily because our stakeholder advisory group has a very important role to play in it and I will explain why that is shortly. Importantly, we will continue to work with third party stakeholders, such as Citizens Advice, and many other groups that we are engaging with. I am very mindful, of course, that we have to rebuild trust with the communities that have been affected.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Priti Patel]

If I may, I will finish the point. To rebuild that trust, working with third parties and other stakeholder groups and organisations is vital, and we will continue to do that.

[Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

On that point of trust, the phone calls to my office today are about a flight tomorrow to Jamaica, and some of my constituents believe that this Bill is being used as some kind of flim-flam before that flight goes. Will the Home Secretary assure me that she will look carefully at every one of the cases that we bring to her to ensure that only those people who absolutely need to be deported are deported tomorrow?

[Priti Patel]

Let me make a few points on that. First and foremost, we should not be conflating this charter flight—the criminality—with the issue of the Windrush compensation scheme. The hon. Lady will know that the House has heard the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) respond to the urgent question earlier, and every person on the flight has been convicted of some of the most serious offences and has received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more. That means that under the UK Borders Act 2007, introduced by the Labour Government at the time, a deportation order must be made. These crimes cover manslaughter, rape, violence, the appalling scourge of drug dealing and sexual offences against children, with a total sentence for this group totalling more than 300 years. It is important to say that the suffering of their victims is incomprehensible, and these offences have a real impact on victims and their communities. It is important to recognise that the individuals being deported have criminal convictions, and that this is about the criminality of the acts they have participated in, not their nationality.

[Lucy Powell]

Actually, this point is not about criminality; it is about whether people are or are not regarded as British citizens. That is the key issue we are discussing this evening, because when the Windrush generation and their descendants came here before 1973, they arrived on British passports—they might have said “Jamaica” or “Trinidad and Tobago” on them, but they were British passports. We are now looking at whether their citizenship was valid from that point or not. We are not now deciding whether they are British citizens; we are saying that they have always been British citizens, so whether or not they have committed a crime is irrelevant to whether they are British citizens. If they have committed a crime, it is our problem. They are our citizens, and we need to deal with it. That is the key issue here, and the Home Secretary has completely missed that point.

[Priti Patel]

I do not think I have missed that point, because this is a charter flight for foreign national offenders—[Interruption.] Members are welcome to bring individual cases, but I can give the House the assurance, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary did earlier today, that—

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady will understand that one of her predecessors resigned because she assured the House that the people involved were foreign nationals and they were not. I would urge her to tread more lightly if she wants to remain in post.

[Priti Patel]

I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the comments made during the urgent question by the Minister. The facts have been provided. I say again that if individuals wish to make representations to the Minister about cases in their constituencies, they are very welcome to do so.

On the Windrush compensation scheme, simplicity and ease of use has been at the forefront of designing it. Requirements for evidence have been designed to be straightforward and easy to understand and, most importantly, not too onerous for the claimant. Our priority has also been to ensure that payments are made as quickly as possible. The first payment was made in July, within four months of the scheme being launched, and the Government want to ensure that all those who have suffered come forward and apply for compensation.

[Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Priti Patel]

No, I will not give way.

As mentioned earlier, the Home Office is extending the length of the scheme by two years, so people will be able to submit claims up to 2 April 2023.

I have outlined some positive steps, but we need to ensure that the scheme is underpinned by the necessary financial parliamentary authority, which is exactly what the Bill is designed to provide. Payments are currently made under the ministerial direction that was issued in July last year, but the Bill offers Parliament the opportunity to give its legislative authority for expenditure under the compensation scheme. Details of the scheme are set out in the non-statutory scheme rules, which give us freedom to amend the scheme swiftly where required. That freedom proved useful last October when, following feedback from stakeholders and claimants, the scheme was amended to allow a broader range of immigration fees to be refunded.

For the scheme to be effective, it is vital that awareness is raised, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) pointed out, and that everyone who has suffered is given a fair chance to claim. Through the Windrush stakeholder advisory group, the Government are overseeing how to reach those who have been affected and hurt. There is no simple or straightforward way in which that hurt can be repaired or that trust rebuilt. It is a sorry fact that there are still members of the Windrush generation who do not have the documentation that they need. Some will not even know that they are entitled to apply for compensation. Others have been put off by false claims that funding for the scheme is capped at £200 million, or have been subject to much misinformation about the scheme, which of course needs to be addressed. We will of course work to correct those inaccuracies, rebuild trust through the advisory group and provide the compensation and justice that people deserve. The role of the stakeholder advisory group is to do exactly that and to find the best links to get back into the affected communities. In addition to that, the Home Office has, as I have already indicated, attended and hosted more than 30 engagement events to promote the scheme, and would welcome interest from Members who wish to support community events in their own constituencies.

No compensation can ever hope to undo the injustice of someone being told that they are not welcome in their homeland. Nothing that we can do or say can ever wipe out the hurt and loss that should never have been suffered in the first place, but we hope that the Windrush compensation scheme can go some way towards easing the financial burden endured as a result, and that we can begin to do justice to those who have contributed much to our country. The United Kingdom is making a start on a new era of openness, and it is a home to everyone with the talent and tenacity to contribute to national life. It is only right that we do everything in our power to redress this historic injustice, so I hope that Members from all parties will take an important step forward in doing so and join me in giving the Bill the support that it needs. I commend the Bill to the House.

Police Powers: Pre-charge Bail

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2020 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

This Government are committed to ensuring the police have the powers they need to protect the public, and that our criminal justice system has at its heart the welfare and best interests of victims.

That is why on 5 November we launched a review of pre-charge bail to ensure we have a system which prioritises safeguarding and supports effective investigations, while also respecting the rights of suspects.

We have listened to people’s concerns, including important issues raised by those who provide frontline support to victims of crime and survivors, the police and parliamentarians.

Today I am therefore pleased to announce the launch of our consultation on proposed changes to pre-charge bail. Specifically, the consultation seeks views on the following proposals:

Removing the presumption against pre-charge bail;

Placing a duty on officers to use pre-charge bail where necessary and proportionate, which would apply in cases where there were safeguarding risks to victims, witnesses and the public; where necessary to prevent further offending; or where the offence in question has significant real or intended impacts;

Lowering the rank of officer needed to authorise and extend pre-charge bail, while also extending the initial period pre-charge bail can be applied from 28 to either 60 or 90 days and delaying the point at which magistrates’ approval for the extension of bail is required from 3 months to 6, 9 or 12 months; and

Introducing review points in codes of practice for investigations where pre-charge bail is not used, including where individuals are interviewed voluntarily or released under investigation. Importantly, this consultation will also look to gather views from victims of crime and those individuals who have been released under investigation about how the current system can be improved, as well seeking views on the current effectiveness of bail conditions

This is a Government that both listens and acts, and I look forward to hearing views on this important issue.

The consultation will be available at: https://www.gov.uk/ government/consultations/police-powers-pre-charge-bail



A copy of the consultation will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS94]

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2020 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of her TPIM powers under the Act during that period.

The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.

Countering Terrorism

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2020 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

The Government’s first priority is to keep families, communities and our country safe. Following the terrorist attack at Fishmongers’ Hall in November 2019 we have reviewed our overall approach to counter-terrorism and the package of measures we have announced today represents a major shift in the UK’s approach to the sentencing and management of terrorist offenders.

The counter-terrorism strategy—CONTEST—was strengthened in 2018 and remains one of the most comprehensive approaches to countering terrorism in the world. But we know the threat we face will to continue to diversify and evolve as it has done in recent years and we must continually assess the effectiveness of our action and remain flexible in adapting our approach.

The package announced today includes a major overhaul of prisons and probation, including tougher monitoring conditions for terrorist offenders and doubling the number of counter-terrorism probation officers. This will also include a full independent review of the multi-agency public protection arrangements. Jonathan Hall QC will lead this review.

A new Counter-Terrorism (Sentencing and Release) Bill, will be introduced in the first 100 days of this Government. The Bill will include measures that will force dangerous terrorist offenders who receive extended determinate sentences to serve the whole time behind bars and will introduce a new statutory minimum sentence of 14 years in prison, which can be applied to those convicted of the most serious terrorist offences.

Funding for CT policing will also grow to £906 million in 2020-21, a £90 million year-on-year increase. The money will support and maintain the record high numbers of ongoing counter-terrorism policing investigations and ensure a swift and effective response to the threat.

The Government will also review the support available to victims of terrorism, including families and loved ones, and immediately invest £500,000 to increase the support provided by the victims of terrorism unit, to ensure more victims get the support and advice they need, faster.

This package of measures sets out how we will continue to build on the UK’s formidable capabilities, experience and expertise to tackle the growing and changing threat from terrorism in all its forms.

[HCWS46]

Armed Policing Code of Practice

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2020 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

As Secretary of State for the Home Department, I have today given approval for the College of Policing to issue the code of practice for armed policing and police use of less lethal weapons.

The code of practice describes the roles and responsibilities of chief officers in relation to armed policing and less lethal weapons. It is relevant to all police officers in England and Wales involved in armed policing or the use of less lethal weapons setting out as it does the basic principles of the selection, evaluation, approval, authorisation, acquisition, training and deployment of these weapons by the police.

The code replaces the 2003 code of practice for the police use of firearms and less lethal weapons. The code has a statutory basis in law, meaning that all police officers have a duty to have regard to it. The revised code of practice should be used in conjunction with the College of Policing authorised professional practice (APP) for armed policing. Alongside the APP the code of practice will help to ensure that the police force maintains the high standards for the police use of firearms, specialist munitions and less lethal weapons, for which the UK is renowned.

The new code also addresses the recommendation made to the Home Office by the Anthony Grainger public inquiry. The inquiry, which was established following the shooting of Anthony Grainger by the police in March 2012, concerns the authorisation of new weapon systems. It stated:

“The Secretary for State of the Home Department should ensure that the new code of practice on police use of firearms and less lethal weapons contains an express prohibition on the use of a new weapon system by the police service until the approval process set out in the code of practice has been completed and the new systems has been approved by the Secretary of State”.

The Government accept this recommendation. The revised code makes it clear that all new less lethal weapons and specialist munitions for use by police forces in England and Wales, and all significant changes to these weapons, must be approved by the Home Secretary.

In relation to the other recommendations, addressed to the police and others, it is the Government’s intention to provide a formal response in due course, once we have fully considered the report, and any recommendations therein. My officials have asked the National Police Chiefs’ Council and Greater Manchester police to set out how they will respond to the concerns raised by the inquiry and improve the safety of armed policing operations.

Finally, I would like to thank our police officers for the invaluable role they play in keeping the country safe, and the College of Policing for the work it has done on the code of practice. The code of practice has been laid before Parliament today and copies will be available from the Vote Office. It will also be available to view on the College of Policing website https://www.college. police.uk/Pages/Home.aspx and on gov.uk https://www.gov. uk/government/publications/armed-policing-and-police-use-of-less-lethal-weapons-code-of-practice.

[HCWS34]

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: Children outside the UK

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2020 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

Today the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse has published its latest report, which can be found at www.iicsa.orq.uk.

This report relates to its investigation into children outside the UK. I pay tribute to the strength and courage of the victims and survivors who have shared their experiences to ensure the inquiry can deliver its vital work.

The Government will review this report and consider how to respond to its content in due course.

I would like to thank Professor Jay and her panel for their continued work to uncover the truth, expose what went wrong in the past and to learn the lessons for the future.

[HCWS26]

Immigration

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

I am announcing today the conversion of the prisons and probation ombudsman (PPO) investigation of Brook House immigration removal centre to a statutory inquiry, in accordance with the Inquiries Act 2005. This inquiry will investigate the mistreatment of detainees at Brook House immigration removal centre broadcast in the BBC Panorama programme “Undercover: Britain’s Immigration Secrets” on 4 September 2017.

The Government take any allegation of mistreatment, and the welfare of immigration detainees, very seriously, and I want to establish the facts of what took place at Brook House and ensure that lessons are learnt to prevent these shocking events happening again.

Sue McAllister, the prisons and probation ombudsman, had appointed Kate Eves to lead their special investigation into Brook House. Following conversion of the special investigation into an inquiry, Sue McAllister, as ombudsman, was automatically appointed as the chair. However, to ensure continuity with their investigation I have agreed that Sue McAllister will recuse herself and Kate Eves will take up the position of inquiry chair. Kate Eves is an experienced and highly qualified investigator within custodial environments.

I have consulted with both Sue McAllister and with Kate Eves to confirm that the inquiry will have a similar scope to the PPO special investigation.

From today, the inquiry will have statutory powers to compel witnesses and establish the truth of what took place at Brook House.

I wish Kate Eves and all at the inquiry every success in taking forward this important piece of work.

The inquiry’s terms of reference are set out below:

Purpose

To investigate into and report on the decisions, actions and circumstances surrounding the mistreatment of detainees broadcast in the BBC Panorama programme “Undercover: Britain’s Immigration Secrets” on 4 September 2017.

To reach conclusions with regard to the treatment of detainees where there is credible evidence of mistreatment contrary to article 3 ECHR; and then make any such recommendations as may seem appropriate. In particular the inquiry will investigate:

The treatment of complainants, including identifying whether there has been mistreatment and identifying responsibility for any mistreatment.

Whether methods, policies, practices and management arrangements (both of the Home Office and its contractors) caused or contributed to any identified mistreatment.

Whether any changes to these methods, policies, practices and management arrangements would help to prevent a recurrence of any identified mistreatment.

Whether any clinical care issues caused or contributed to any identified mistreatment.

Whether any changes to clinical care would help to prevent a recurrence of any identified mistreatment.

The adequacy of the complaints and monitoring mechanisms provided by Home Office immigration enforcement and external bodies (including, but not limited to, the centre’s independent monitoring board and statutory role of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons) in respect of any identified mistreatment.

Scope

For the purpose of the inquiry, the term “complainants” is used to refer to any individual who was detained at Brook House immigration removal centre during the period 1 April 2017 to 31 August 2017 where there is credible evidence of mistreatment of that individual.

“Mistreatment” is used to refer to treatment that is contrary to article 3 ECHR.

The inquiry should in particular include investigation in to the mistreatment of complainants known (in the recent Brook House litigation) as MA and BB.

The inquiry may wish to draw upon the evidence and findings of the previous special investigation in to the events at Brook House, conducted by the PPO, before it was converted to a statutory inquiry.

Method

As a statutory inquiry, the inquiry will operate within the legal framework provided by the Inquiries Act 2005. As such, the procedure and conduct of the inquiry are to be directed by the chairman.

Report

The inquiry should be undertaken with sufficient pace to enable resulting recommendations to be implemented as quickly and effectively as possible. It is expected, on the basis of current information, that the inquiry will make its best endeavours to complete work and produce a final report to the Home Secretary, setting out their findings of fact and recommendations, within 12 months.

Principles

The inquiry will have full access to all the material it seeks.

The inquiry will bear the legal expenses for any individuals designated as core participant status by the inquiry chairperson.

It is not part of the inquiry’s function to determine civil or criminal liability of named individuals or organisations. This should not, however, inhibit the inquiry from reaching findings of fact relevant to its terms of reference.

[HCWS99]

Pre-charge Bail

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

This Government are fully committed to protecting the public, and ensuring the police have the powers they need. As such, today I am announcing that I intend to review pre-charge bail legislation to ensure we have a system which more effectively prioritises the safety of victims and witnesses and the management of suspects.

Pre-charge bail enables the police to release a suspect from custody, usually subject to conditions, while officers continue their investigation or await charging decision. The Policing and Crime Act 2017 “the Act” introduced reforms to pre-charge bail to address legitimate concerns that suspects were spending too long under restrictive conditions with no oversight or redress.

Specifically, the Act introduced (in relation to pre-charge bail): a presumption against use unless necessary and proportionate; clear timescales, and senior police and judicial oversight of its use and extension.

Since 2017 the use of pre-charge bail has decreased, and the number of individuals released without bail, or “released under investigation”, has also increased.

Furthermore, the demands on the police service have also changed. Concerns have been raised that pre-charge bail is not consistently being used in instances where it may be necessary to effectively manage suspects and protect victims and witnesses.

The review will also look at how legislative frameworks around pre-charge bail can more effectively:

support the police in the timely management of investigations, whether released on bail or without bail (“released under investigation”);

respect the rights of suspects, victims and witnesses to timely decisions and updates;

support the timely progression of cases to courts; and

how existing rules may be made simpler and more flexible in design to support effective operational decisions

[HCWS94]

Unauthorised Encampments: Police Powers

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2019 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

Today I am announcing the Government’s plans to consult on criminalising the act of trespassing when setting up an unauthorised encampment in England and Wales. I recognise the distress and misery that some unauthorised encampments cause to many communities and businesses across the country. Currently, this kind of trespass is a civil matter and the powers available to the police are limited.

My predecessor, my Right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), announced to the House of Commons on 6 February that we would carry out a public consultation on amending the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to lower the criteria that must be met for the police to be able to direct people away from unauthorised sites. He also announced that the Home Office would conduct a review of how trespassing while setting up an unauthorised encampment could be made a criminal offence in England and Wales, learning lessons from other countries like the Republic of Ireland, where this is already a criminal offence.

I am announcing today that having considered the legislation in the Republic of Ireland, I would like to test the appetite to go further than the original proposals. I would like to broaden the existing categories of criminal trespass to cover trespassers on land who are there with the purpose of residing in their vehicle for any period, and to give the police the relevant powers to arrest offenders in situ and to seize any vehicles or other property on unauthorised encampments promptly.

Tomorrow, we will launch a public consultation on whether criminalising unauthorised encampments would be preferable to the amendments we originally proposed to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and if so, how it should work. The consultation will be available tomorrow at www.gov.uk/government/consultations/ strengthening-police-powers-to-tackle-unauthorised-encampments and will be open for four months. A copy of the consultation will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

I thank Members for their continued engagement on this important issue.

[HCWS80]

Terrorism

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2019 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

Today, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) changed the UK national terrorism threat level from ‘SEVERE’ to ‘SUBSTANTIAL’. This means that a terrorist attack is likely.

The decision to change the threat level is taken by JTAC independently of Ministers. JTAC conducts a formal review of the terrorism threat level every six months.

This is a systematic, comprehensive and rigorous process, based on the very latest intelligence and analysis of internal and external factors which drive the threat.

Despite the change in the threat level, terrorism remains one of the most direct and immediate risks to our National Security.

‘SUBSTANTIAL’ continues to indicate a high level of threat; and an attack might well occur without further warning.

As ever, the public should remain vigilant and report any concerns they may have to the police.

Government, police and intelligence agencies will continue to work tirelessly to address the threat posed by terrorism in all its forms. The threat level is kept under constant review.

[HCWS76]