Chris Philp
MP for Croydon South · Conservative · United Kingdom
“The Minister mentioned return numbers, but what she did not mention is that the return of 6,000 small-boat migrants in the past two and a bit years amounts to only 8% of illegal immigrants crossing the channel. That is to say, 92% of illegal immigrants crossing get to stay. There is no deterrent whatsoever in that.”
“I cannot give all the many examples, in the interests of time, but they cited one example in which apparently hundreds of Pakistani men claimed to be gay, based on a letter from an individual claiming to be the sexual partner of all of them. That is quite clearly fabricated with the assistance of immigration lawyers.”
“I was on the beaches of northern France just a few weeks ago, waist deep in water as one such dinghy embarked with about 100 illegal immigrants on it, while 10 members of the French gendarmerie nationale, who we pay for—who the Home Secretary pays for—with £660 million of our money, almost all of it unconditional, stood by and did nothing…”
“Numerous rapes have been committed by small-boat illegal immigrants, including the rape of a girl in Nuneaton aged just 12. The Government are using sleight of hand. They are moving illegal immigrants from hotels into apartments, then granting them asylum on an industrial scale.”
“I thank my constituency neighbour, the Minister for Policing and Crime, for advance sight of her statement. I am sure that we all agree that the right to protest is a fundamental part of our democracy, but the right to protest should never be violently exercised or cause serious disruption to other people.”
“Since the general election, over 80,000 illegal immigrants have crossed the channel, all illegally and all unnecessarily, because France is a safe country—nobody is fleeing persecution in France. Almost 20,000 have crossed this year alone, and 625 crossed yesterday, with more coming in the early hours.”
The complete record
Every one of 6,642 lines we hold for Chris Philp, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 26 of 133.
“On the shadow Minister’s other question, discussions are ongoing with the devolved Administrations. We would be very happy to extend these provisions to them. As he said earlier, it is much better that these things are done on a UK-wide basis. We the UK Government are certainly engaging constructively. I am hoping to have more to say on Report. If those jurisdictions want to take up these provisions, I expect there will be an amendment on Report, but it would obviously require their agreement. That is certainly something we would want to facilitate. Question put and agreed to. Clause 32, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“Yes, I am very happy to give the shadow Minister that assurance and to state clearly on the record in Hansard that that is the Government’s intent, and I think it is also the Committee’s intent—I can see waves of agreement rippling around Committee Room 10. We do intend for this to be applied widely. This does not just mean that an asset is on the cusp of being sold; it is much wider than that. It means that any real risk that property might be sold should engage the provisions of this clause, and the judge should have the confidence and, when this is passed, the statutory basis to make that order. The shadow Minister is absolutely right that there is cross-party agreement that this should be quite widely interpreted by the courts, should it be passed. I absolutely put on the record what he was saying.”
“This scheme presents an opportunity to leverage our world-class public-private partnership to extract the money that is currently suspended and to invest it in measures to combat economic crime. I am sure that we can all get behind that opportunity. We worked closely with industry partners on developing this measure and consulted with them. We held targeted stakeholder engagement to test the proposals, and they are broadly supported. I am grateful to the stakeholders for the work they have done. I think that this is quite a sensible measure: it will get more cash out of suspended accounts, where it is not doing any good, and into combating economic crime for the benefit of all of our constituents.”
“However, it is not always possible for law enforcement to investigate the alleged criminality to the point that a conviction can be secured, for a variety of reasons, including where the source of the funds and the owners cannot be identified, especially where techniques designed to obfuscate the funds’ origins or ultimate beneficial ownership have been deployed. As a result, quite a lot of money remains suspended across industry. From a survey conducted with the financial sector, it is estimated that it currently holds £200 million of suspected criminal funds in suspended accounts and that a further £30 million a year could be suspended in the future. There is currently no way to access those funds; they simply remain suspended.”
“Clause 33 and schedule 5 will enshrine in law a power for the Secretary of State to create a suspended accounts scheme, with details to be set out in regulations. The scheme will allow financial institutions, such as banks and building societies, to transfer to a Government-appointed scheme administrator amounts equivalent to the balances of customer accounts that have been suspended based on suspicion of criminality. These funds would then be used to finance projects relating to economic crime. As part of its commitment to tackling economic crime, alongside its legal obligations—for example, to combat money laundering—the financial sector has been suspending customer accounts where it suspects criminal activity. Where practicable, our law enforcement agencies will then investigate such criminality.”
“When we bring the regulations back, the shadow Minister or his colleagues can have a look at how that is designed. He has made a good point, and we will make sure it is reflected in the way in which the regulations are designed in due course. Question put and agreed to. Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 5 agreed to. Clause 34 Electronic monitoring requirements”
“He is right to say that any compensation will be paid from inside the scheme and not subsidised by the wider taxpayer, so it will be internally financed, not creating any wider financial liability. It may be the case that, if there is one big claim, the “in any period” caveat would allow for the compensation to be paid over more than one period. The shadow Minister also asked whether this might inadvertently create a perverse incentive for financial institutions to only make transfers up to the limit of the cap. Clearly, where that cap is set requires some thought. That is a very good question to dig into when these regulations are brought forward and debated. I will make sure that colleagues in the Home Office designing these regulations do so with that concern in mind.”
“I mentioned this in my introductory remarks. It will apply to all the balances currently held, which includes all those balances accumulated over the last 15 years. The estimation is that that adds up to £200 million. We estimate that the inward flow each year will be £30 million or more. I hope that gives the shadow Minister a sense of the quantum. We expect wide take-up across the whole financial services industry. Obviously, financial institutions are already suspending accounts, to the tune of £200 million up to date and, we think, £30 million or more a year going forward. Our engagement suggests that there will be wide take-up. On the shadow Minister’s point about the limit to the compensation, the last words of paragraph 5(2) of schedule 5 are “in any period”, which I presume is to ensure that the scheme remains solvent.”
“I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 34, page 27, line 16, at end insert “and Northern Ireland”. This amendment and amendments 85 to 88 provide that a serious crime prevention order made in Northern Ireland may include electronic monitoring requirements.”
“Clause 34 provides for those electronic monitoring or tagging obligations to be imposed as part of the SCPO.”
“The exception to that will be in breaches of the prescribed notification requirements in clause 36, as the offence of not providing that information will apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland but not to Scotland. That is the substance of the amendments. As for the substance of clause 34 itself—I think that we will talk about clauses 35, 36 and 37 separately—it provides an express power for the courts to impose an electronic monitoring requirement as part of an SCPO. Tagging the subject will be used to monitor their compliance with various relevant terms, such as an exclusion zone or a curfew, and that will make the orders more effective. They are strengthened in other ways too, but those ways are set out in clauses 35 to 37, which we will talk about later.”
“I think it would be better if they were, but on this occasion we will respect the request made by the Scottish Government. However, we have considered how we can manage the differences in regime between Scotland and the rest of the UK once the measures come into force. Scotland will, of course, continue to benefit from the existing SCPO regime under the 2007 Act, and in instances where an SCPO made in England, Wales or Northern Ireland is breached, the offender will not be able simply to flee to Scotland. The offence of breaching an order, as set out in the 2007 Act, remains a UK-wide offence, so enforcement against breach continues on a UK-wide basis.”
“Scotland will keep the existing regime, as set out in the 2007 Act, whereas Northern Ireland will benefit from the various provisions of clauses 34 to 37. In particular, I draw the Committee’s attention to the express power for courts to impose electronic monitoring; the opportunity for a wider range of frontline agencies to apply directly to the High Court for an SCPO; the introduction of a prescribed set of notification requirements for these orders; and the enabling of the Crown court in Northern Ireland to make an SCPO on acquittal where the two-limb test is met. Ideally, we would apply these measures on a UK-wide basis. However, at the request of the Scottish Government, they will not be extended to Scotland at this time.”
“I would like to remain popular with colleagues, so I will not do that. The Government amendments relate to clauses 34 to 37, which seek to strengthen the operation of serious crime prevention orders. SCPOs are a powerful tool for preventing and disrupting the activities of the highest-harm criminals involved in serious crime. However, they are not currently being used to maximum effect and their use is significantly lower than was when they were introduced in the Serious Crime Act 2007. As drafted, clauses 34 to 37 apply to England and Wales only. Having consulted the Northern Ireland Department of Justice, we tabled the amendments to extend the application of the clauses to Northern Ireland, which will ensure parity between England and Wales and Northern Ireland when it comes to SCPOs.”
“Amendment 103, in clause 35, page 33, line 7, after “England and Wales” insert “or Northern Ireland”. This amendment and amendments 104 to 105 extend the functions of the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police in relation to serious crime prevention orders in Northern Ireland, and are consequential on amendment 91. Amendment 104, in clause 35, page 33, line 12, at end insert “or Northern Ireland”. See the explanatory statement to amendment 103. Amendment 105, in clause 35, page 33, line 15, at end insert “or Northern Ireland”. See the explanatory statement to amendment 103. Amendment 106, in clause 35, page 33, line 20, after “England and Wales” insert “or Northern Ireland”.— (Chris Philp.) See the explanatory statement to amendment 103 .”
“Amendment 98, in clause 35, page 31, line 29, at end insert “or Northern Ireland”. See the explanatory statement to amendment 97. Amendment 99, in clause 35, page 31, line 33, after “section 27” insert “or 28”. See the explanatory statement to amendment 97. Amendment 100, in clause 35, page 31, line 43, after “England and Wales” insert “or Northern Ireland”. This amendment and amendments 101 and 102 extend the functions of the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in relation to serious crime prevention orders in Northern Ireland, and are consequential on amendment 91. Amendment 101, in clause 35, page 32, line 4, at end insert “or Northern Ireland”. See the explanatory statement to amendment 100. Amendment 102, in clause 35, page 32, line 8, after “section 27” insert “or 28”. See the explanatory statement to amendment 100.”
“It is consequential on amendment 91. Amendment 96, in clause 35, page 31, line 18, at end insert— “(za) in paragraph 12— (i) in paragraphs (a) and (b), after “England and Wales” insert “or Northern Ireland”; (ii) in paragraph (c), after “section 27” insert “or 28”;”. This amendment extends the functions of the Director of the Serious Fraud Office in relation to serious crime prevention orders in Northern Ireland, and is consequential on amendment 91. Amendment 97, in clause 35, page 31, line 24, after “England and Wales” insert “or Northern Ireland”. This amendment and amendments 98 and 99 extend the functions of the Director General of the National Crime Agency in relation to serious crime prevention orders in Northern Ireland, and are consequential on amendment 91.”
“Amendment 95, in clause 35, page 31, line 17, at end insert— “(4A) In section 28 (power to wind up companies: Northern Ireland)— (a) in subsection (1)— (i) in the words before paragraph (a), after “Northern Ireland” insert “or the Director of the Serious Fraud Office”; (ii) in paragraph (b), for “of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland” substitute “concerned”; (b) for subsection (1A) substitute— “(1A) A person mentioned in section 8(1C)(a)(iii) to (vi) may present a petition to the court for the winding up of a company, partnership or relevant body if— (a) the company, partnership or relevant body has been convicted of an offence under section 25 in relation to a serious crime prevention order made on an application by the person, and (b) the person considers that it would be in the public interest for the company, partnership or (as the case may be) relevant body to be wound up.”; (c) in subsection (3), for the words from “the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland” to the end substitute “a person who is authorised to present a petition in accordance with subsection (1) or (1A).” This amendment makes provision for each of the new applicants for a serious crime prevention order in Northern Ireland to be able to present a petition to the court for the winding up of a body which has been convicted of an offence in relation to an order made on the application of the applicant.”
“Amendment 94, in clause 35, page 30, leave out lines 41 to 44 and insert— “(a) in paragraph (a)— (i) omit sub-paragraphs (i) and (iii); (ii) after sub-paragraph (iv) insert— “(v) in any other case, the person who applied for the order;”; (b) for paragraph (b) substitute— “(b) in relation to a serious crime prevention order in Northern Ireland, the person who applied for the order.”” This amendment makes provision for the meaning of “relevant applicant authority” for serious crime prevention orders in Northern Ireland, and is consequential on amendment 91.”
“Amendment 93, in clause 35, page 30, line 39, at end insert— “(1D) A serious crime prevention order may be made by the Crown Court in Northern Ireland— (a) only on an application by— (i) the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, (ii) the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, or (iii) a chief officer of police, and (b) in the case of an application by a chief officer of police, only if— (i) it is an application for an order under section 19 or19A that is terrorism-related (see section 8A), and (ii) the chief officer has consulted the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.” This amendment makes provision for the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to apply to the Crown Court in Northern Ireland for a serious crime prevention order.”
“Amendment 92, in clause 35, page 30, line 34, leave out from “by” to end of line 39 and insert “a person listed in paragraph (a)(iii) to (vi), only if the person has consulted the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.” This amendment omits the requirement that a chief officer of police in Northern Ireland may only apply for a serious crime prevention order if it is terrorism-related. It also provides that each of the applicants listed in paragraph (a)(iii) to (vi) must consult the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland before making an application.”
“Amendment 91, in clause 35, page 30, leave out lines 32 and 33 and insert— “(ii) the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, (iii) the Director General of the National Crime Agency, (iv) the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, (v) the chief officer of police, or (vi) the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police, and”. This amendment provides that the persons listed in the amendment may apply to the High Court in Northern Ireland for a serious crime prevention order.”
“Amendment 89, in clause 34, page 28, line 29, leave out “In” and insert “For the purposes of”.— (Chris Philp .) This amendment clarifies that the definitions in new section 5C(5) are relevant to subsection (4)(a) (but the defined terms are not all set out in subsection (4)(a)). Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 35 Applicants for an order: England and Wales Amendments made: 90, in clause 35, page 30, line 16, leave out “the appropriate court” and insert “a court or sheriff”. This amendment restates the position under sections 8 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 in relation to applications for serious crime prevention orders to the High Court of Justiciary or the sheriff in Scotland under section 22A of that Act.”
“1).” This amendment provides that the person responsible for conducting electronic monitoring must be a person specified by the Department of Justice under Article 40(3) of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (N.I. 1). Amendment 88, in clause 34, page 28, line 23, leave out “The court” and insert “A court in England and Wales”. This amendment sets out the requirements to be satisfied for a court in England and Wales to impose an electronic monitoring requirement. It is limited to England and Wales because electronic monitoring is available throughout Northern Ireland.”
“The issue, really, is getting more orders made, but the monitoring of them is also important, as the shadow Minister says. Amendment 84 agreed to . Amendments made: 85, in clause 34, page 27, line 18, after “Wales” insert “or Northern Ireland”. See the explanatory statement to amendment 84. Amendment 86, in clause 34, page 27, line 28, at end insert “— (a) where the order is made in England and Wales,”. This amendment is consequential on amendment 87. Amendment 87, in clause 34, page 27, line 30, at end insert— “(b) where the order is made in Northern Ireland, must be of a description specified in an order made by the Department of Justice under Article 40(3) of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (N.I.”
“Many of the questions concerning the probation service are for the Ministry of Justice, not the Home Office, but I know that the Ministry of Justice is investing more resources. Now that the probation service has been effectively renationalised, there is a lot more direct control over its activities and some of the quality problems that arose a few years ago. It is worth saying that it is not the probation service that manages SCPOs, but the National Crime Agency, but I wanted to offer the hon. Gentleman reassurance about the probation service. The National Crime Agency supports these measures. In last two years, between 2021-22 and the current financial year, 2023-24, there has been a 21% increase in its budget from £711 million to £860 million, giving it quite a lot of bandwidth to monitor these orders.”
“In summary, we hope that extending the range of law enforcement agencies that can apply for an SCPO will, when combined with the other streamlining measures, help to encourage more applications. I commend the clause to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 35, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 36 Notification Requirements Amendments made: 107, in clause 36, page 33, line 35, at end insert “and Northern Ireland”. This amendment and amendments 108 and 110 to 113 make provision for notification requirements by persons other than individuals who are subject to a serious crime prevention order in Northern Ireland. Amendment 108, in clause 36, page 33, line 38, after “Wales” insert “or Northern Ireland”.— (Chris Philp.) See the explanatory statement for amendment 107.”
“The CPS is responsible for evaluating the merits of an application to ensure that an SCPO is not being used inappropriately as an alternative to prosecution, and it can intervene if it thinks prosecution would be more appropriate. In recognition of this role, the agencies being given the right to apply directly to the High Court will be required to consult the CPS before making an application. It will be for the law enforcement agency that applied for the SCPO to monitor and enforce it once it is imposed on the individual concerned. The clause also extends to those additional agencies the power to submit a petition to the court for the winding-up of a company or partnership. A petition can be submitted only if the body has failed to comply with the terms of the SCPO and it is in the public interest for the body to be wound up.”
“The clause extends the power to make applications to the High Court for an SCPO to other agencies, particularly the National Crime Agency, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the police in all cases, the British Transport police and the Ministry of Defence police, so that many more law enforcement agencies can use it. The clause also sets out who is authorised to make those applications, and it streamlines the process for doing so, in the hope that that will encourage more applications. In many cases where criminal proceedings cannot be pursued, those agencies will be best placed to lead the process of applying for an SCPO as they will have in-depth knowledge of the case and subject matter expertise.”
“The clause amends the Serious Crime Act 2007 to provide additional agencies with the power to apply directly to the High Court for a SCPO. The High Court can already make an SCPO upon application by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office, as well as by the police in terrorism cases. However, as we have heard already, these orders are not being used to maximum effect. In the 10 years between 2011 and 2021, only two applications were made to the High Court for an SCPO in the absence of a conviction, of which only one was successful.”
“I beg to move amendment 109, in clause 36, page 33, line 39, leave out from second “the” to end of line 40 and insert “first day on which any of its provisions comes into force—”. This amendment adjusts the time period within which a notification under section 15A(1) must be made.”
“Amendments 109 and 116 provide that the time within which an individual made subject to an SCPO must provide the relevant information to the police is three days from the day the order comes into force—not three days from the day the order is made, as drafted. Although some orders come into force on the day they are made, others do not until, for example, the individual has served their prison sentence. The amendments allow for those different circumstances and will ensure that individuals do not inadvertently fall foul of the offence of failing to provide the required information when that would not be the Government’s intention or be reasonable. The amendments have the same effect as amendment 69, tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton North—I apologise that the Government have adopted the measure, if that is the right word.”
“Government amendments 117 and 119 will add to the list of notification requirements. The clause already includes things such as usernames and display names for social media, because monitoring these individuals’ activity online is very important. Amendment 117 adds to that list a requirement so that, in addition to usernames for social media, the relevant individuals must notify the police of any names used to access, or that identify them on, an online video-gaming service with messaging functionality. Law enforcement agencies report that such gaming websites are frequently used by individuals to communicate with other people, including in an attempt to circumvent restrictions on communications detailed in their order, so that they may re-establish their criminal enterprises. Tightening the legislation will remove that loophole.”
“The clause amends the Serious Crime Act 2007 to provide that all those subject to an SCPO are required to provide the police with specified personal data as standard. It includes a set of appropriate requirements for bodies corporate. All those requirements can currently be attached to an SCPO at the discretion of the court, on a case-by-case basis, but the clause will place the same set of notification requirements on all individuals without the need for case-by-case applications. Most respondents to the public consultation agreed with this proposal. Many highlighted that standardising notification requirements will create consistency and save the court some time. The notifiable information includes information such as the person’s address, employment details, telephone numbers, email address and some financial information.”
“There we are. We have enthusiastically embraced the hon. Gentleman’s idea. I give him and his colleagues full credit for conceiving it. I acknowledge that the Government amendment does the same thing as his amendment 69 would do, for which I thank and congratulate him. Finally, Government amendment 114 is a drafting amendment—it might even be a technical drafting amendment—to ensure that the definition of a “relevant body” in proposed new section 15A of the Serious Crime Act 2007 carries through to the proposed new section 15C. I am sure that even the shadow Minister will agree that that is fairly technical in nature.”
“This clause will streamline the process and help ensure that SCPOs can be used more frequently where appropriate.”
“There are reasons why a person may be acquitted of a particular offence where the standard of proof is high—beyond reasonable doubt—but where an SCPO may still be appropriate: for example, when the evidence may not satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt that a serious offence has been committed, but there may be sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that the person has been involved in serious crime. The court could then decide that imposing an SCPO would protect the public. There is precedent for this approach: domestic abuse protection orders under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and restraining orders under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 also allow for court orders to be made against individuals on acquittal or when allowing an appeal.”
“The serious offences are defined in schedule 1 to the 2007 Act, and they include slavery, drug trafficking, firearms offences, terrorism, armed robbery, people trafficking and economic crime, including fraud, money laundering, sanctions evasion and offences in relation to the public revenue. Clause 37 sets out that the Crown court can impose an SCPO on acquittal or when allowing appeal if the same test is met. The Government believe that the Crown court, on application from the Crown Prosecution Service or the Serious Fraud Office, is best placed to decide whether to make an order against a person whom it has just acquitted, given that the court will have heard all the evidence relating to the person’s conduct and can ensure that the two-limb test has been met.”
“Clause 37 also amends the Serious Crime Act 2007 to provide the Crown court the power to impose an SCPO on a person who has been acquitted or when allowing an appeal. The High Court already has the power to impose an SCPO in lieu of conviction, provided that it meets the two-limb test set out in the 2007 Act: the court must be satisfied that a person has been involved in a serious crime, presumably on the balance of probability, and it must have reasonable grounds to believe that the order would protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting involvement by the person in serious crime.”
“The shadow Minister asks how he can be sure that these orders will be used reasonably. The answer to that lies in the two-limb test, which was set out in the 2007 Act. I guess it must have been either the Blair Government or the Brown Government who set out the test. It is that the court—now it will obviously be the Crown court as well as, previously, the High Court—is satisfied that a person has been involved in serious crime and that it has reasonable grounds to believe that the order will protect the public. The protection really is that the court must be satisfied of those two things. All we are really doing is extending to the Crown court the ability that the High Court has had already in applying those tests, which have been around for the past 17 years.”
“But we should definitely monitor the situation to ensure that the power is actually used. I think that probably answers the points that have been raised. Question put and agreed to . Clause 37, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. — (Scott Mann .)”
“Member for Birmingham, Yardley is, I think, right to highlight the risk that it might not be used as frequently as it should be, so we need to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service, the barristers who are presenting these cases before the court, and the court itself—Crown court judges—are fully informed about this power once we pass it. Of course, being able to issue an SCPO at the point of acquittal—there and then, on the spot—is much easier than having to make a separate application to the High Court, which I can imagine might get forgotten about, so this should result in a much larger number of SCPOs: the judge can do it on the spot, on acquittal, having just heard all the evidence, and without the need for a whole separate application and process in the High Court to be gone through.”
“I thank the hon. Member for her question. She has anticipated the fact that that data is not immediately at my fingertips, but I would be happy to provide her, by way of follow-up correspondence, with the data that she has just requested. In relation to monitoring, which I think the shadow Minister asked about, there will be post-legislative review, three to five years after Royal Assent, that will check up on progress and how this is being used in practice. We do want to ensure that it is properly used, in the sense that it is applied to all the cases where it could protect the public. The hon.”
“I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 15, page 11, line 19, leave out lines 19 to 21. The amendment and amendment 26 ensure that procedural provisions in respect of regulations made under new section 63CA of PACE 1984 operate as intended.”
“The Government are keen to get more people into treatment: something that we have funded with £300 million of extra cash over two or three years, with the aim of creating 54,500 extra drug treatment places. I am sure that we can all agree that the best thing is to get people off drug addiction, to prevent criminal behaviour. The assessments that I have just referred to will enable those people to be referred into treatment or support services, whose funding has just been increased, as I mentioned. The new power will operate alongside the existing power, as expanded in the Bill, to drug test people on arrest or charge in police detention under section 63B of PACE.”
“It is a great pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mrs Latham. This series of Government amendments and associated clauses expands the police powers to drug test on arrest to include locations outside of custody. That includes introducing a new police power into part 3 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to drug test persons on arrest at a location outside of the custody suite when certain conditions have been met. It also amends part 3 of the Drugs Act 2005 to provide the police with a power to require people who test positive to attend an initial assessment—and, when appropriate, a follow-up assessment—in respect of their drug misuse.”
“I accept that there is a need for resources, but those investments are being made. The implementation is being tracked by a cross-Whitehall taskforce that meets on a regular basis and includes officials from lots of Departments.”
“I thank the hon. Lady for raising the point. It is important to have capacity to deliver the testing. As I mentioned a couple of moments ago, we are now in the second year of a three-year funding commitment, as part of the 10-year drug strategy, to fund 54,500 extra drug treatment places across the country, delivered in partnership with local public health bodies. Those places have been created. There are now also liaison and diversion officers, I think, in every—or almost every—custody setting and in many courts as well, to help identify people who have a drug addiction. Just before Christmas, I visited the custody suite in Northampton, where I met liaison and diversion officers. They speak to people who have been brought into custody and, if there is a substance problem, get them referred as we are describing.”
“I have talked about the liaison and diversion officers and the treatment capacity, but on police resources, which the hon. Lady was asking about, we have just completed a substantial police recruitment programme. We now have 20,951 more officers than we had four years ago and 3,500 more than we have ever had before. The training takes two to three years; as officers complete their training, more and more will be available for frontline deployment. In addition, we are also—”
“As with the current powers to drug test in police detention, testing may take place only when a person has been arrested for a relevant trigger offence, or another offence where an officer of at least the rank of inspector has reasonable grounds to suspect that the misuse of a specified controlled drug has caused or contributed to the offence and expressly authorises the test. A refusal to provide a sample without good reason will be a criminal offence, as is currently the case with the existing regime for drug testing on arrest.”