Blog

  • Sarah Wollaston – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Sarah Wollaston – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sarah Wollaston on 2016-01-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for how long people under the age of 18 who were transferred to a place of safety under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 were detained on average in (a) a police cell and (b) a police vehicle in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years.

    Mike Penning

    The information requested is not held centrally.

    However, the use of police cells as a place of safety for all persons detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 has more than halved since 2011/12 (when figures were first collated) as shown in the following table. A joint inspection by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC); Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP); the Care Quality Commission (CQC); and Healthcare Inspectorate Wales (HIW) (published in 2013) found that the average time that each such person spent in police custody was 10 hours 32 minutes.

    The Government intends to make provision in the Policing and Crime Bill, to be introduced in Parliament soon, to prohibit the use of police cells as places of safety for people under the age of 18, and to further limit their use in the case of adults. The maximum period for which a person may be detained pending a mental health assessment will also be reduced.

    Table 1: number of times a police station was used as a place of safety for people detained under Section 136 Mental Health Act 1983 (England only)

    Year

    Section 136 detentions in police stations

    Percentage reduction year on year (to nearest whole number)

    2011-12

    8,667

    N/A[1]

    2012-13

    7,881

    -9%

    2013-14

    6,028

    -24%

    2014-15

    3,996

    -34%

    Source: Health and Social Care Information Centre

    [1] No data on use of police stations is available for 2010-11.

  • Andy Slaughter – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Andy Slaughter – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andy Slaughter on 2016-01-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what funds the Government has provided for (a) humanitarian efforts and (b) security at the refugee camp in Calais in the last 12 months.

    James Brokenshire

    As part of the UK-France Joint Declaration of 20 August 2015, the UK committed to providing £3.6 million (or €5 million) per year for two years to facilitate the movement of migrants away from Calais by providing support and facilities elsewhere in France.

    Additionally, the UK has provided £530,000 (or €750,000) to fund a project to identify those in the camps at risk of trafficking and exploitation, and to provide them with appropriate support within the French system.

    Security at the camps in Calais is the responsibility of the French Government, and the UK Government has not committed funds for this purpose.

  • Khalid Mahmood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Khalid Mahmood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Khalid Mahmood on 2016-01-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many (a) arrests and (b) convictions have been made in connection with gun-related crime in the West Midlands metropolitan area in each quarter of the last five years.

    Mike Penning

    Offences involving firearms recorded by the police at the force area level are published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on a financial year basis. The most recently published figures for the West Midlands and England are 2013/14. These are given in the table and show that between 2009/10 and 2013/14, offences involving firearms (excluding air weapons) fell by 40% in both the West Midlands and in England.

    Figures for 2014/15 are due to be published on 11 February 2016 in the ONS publication Focus on: Violent Crime and Sexual Offences 2014/15.

    The ONS publish provisional data for England and Wales on the number of offences involving firearms in their quarterly crime statistics releases. The most recently available figures are for the year ending June 2015 and these can be found here: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/year-ending-june-2015/stb-crime–ye-june-2015.html

    The Home Office does not collect data on the number of people arrested in connection with offences involving firearms. The Home Office collects data on arrests by groups of crimes (for example, violence against the person, robbery) but cannot separately identify those that involved a firearm from those that did not.

    Convictions data are the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry of Justice has informed the Home Office that they do not hold data on the number of convictions for offences where a firearm was involved.

  • Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Blomfield on 2016-01-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in which (a) towns, (b) cities and (c) regions were the recorded locations of exploitation of potential victims of human trafficking referred to the UK National Referral Mechanism in 2014.

    Karen Bradley

    The table below shows the breakdown of the claimed location of exploitation for the 2,340 potential victims referred to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) in 2014. The geographical location of exploitation is recorded by police force area only, for reporting and statistical purposes.

    YEAR

    2014

    Police for area of exploitation (claimed)

    Total

    Avon & Somerset

    16

    Bedfordshire

    12

    Cambridgeshire

    31

    Cheshire

    6

    Cleveland

    8

    Derbyshire

    6

    Devon & Cornwall

    8

    Dorset

    10

    Durham

    3

    Dyfed-Powys

    2

    Essex

    12

    Gloucestershire

    2

    GMP

    38

    Gwent

    5

    Hampshire

    21

    Hertfordshire

    4

    Humberside

    2

    Kent

    26

    Lancashire

    2

    Leicestershire

    7

    Lincolnshire

    8

    Merseyside

    7

    Metropolitan

    232

    Multiple locations

    83

    Norfolk

    7

    North Yorkshire

    13

    Northamptonshire

    2

    Northumbria

    12

    Nottinghamshire

    14

    Police Scotland

    44

    PSNI

    30

    South Wales

    7

    South Yorkshire

    14

    Staffordshire

    3

    Suffolk

    3

    Surrey

    1

    Sussex

    8

    Thames Valley

    17

    Warwickshire

    4

    West Mercia

    5

    West Midlands

    51

    West Yorkshire

    87

    Wiltshire

    19

    Overseas

    432

    Unknown / Not recorded*

    1016

    Total

    2340

    * “Unknown/not-recorded” cases are ones where: • potential victims did not know the location of exploitation; and / or

    • potential victims have been moved with the intention to exploit but have been identified before an act of exploitation has taken place; and / or

    • frontline workers did not accurately record this data when initial referrals were made

    “

  • Gerald Howarth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Gerald Howarth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gerald Howarth on 2016-01-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Government’s Counter-Extremism Strategy, published in October 2015, what plans the Government has to consult with faith groups on its definition of extremism.

    Karen Bradley

    The Government definition of extremism is ‘vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.’ We have been consistent on this since 2011 and have reaffirmed this definition in the Counter-Extremism Strategy.

    The overwhelming majority of people in this country support these values and condemn those who try to undermine them.

    The Government would not consider the ‘claim’ that an individual’s religion is ‘the only one true faith’ to be extremist.

    We are clear that Government should not restrict anyone’s freedom of speech or right to practise a faith. These are core values that help to make our country great. However we shouldn’t allow the extremist voice to go unchallenged, causing harm to our society and promoting hatred and division.

    The Government has engaged on the strategy, and will continue to engage with partners – including faith groups, communities and civic society groups on the new proposed powers to tackle the most dangerous extremists. This provides an opportunity to consult on the proposed powers further, and ensure that sufficient safeguards are in place to protect our rights to free speech and debate.

  • Gerald Howarth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Gerald Howarth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gerald Howarth on 2016-01-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Government’s Counter-Extremism Strategy, published in October 2015, whether a religious group or individual which claims that their religion is the only one true faith is included in its definition of extremism.

    Karen Bradley

    The Government definition of extremism is ‘vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.’ We have been consistent on this since 2011 and have reaffirmed this definition in the Counter-Extremism Strategy.

    The overwhelming majority of people in this country support these values and condemn those who try to undermine them.

    The Government would not consider the ‘claim’ that an individual’s religion is ‘the only one true faith’ to be extremist.

    We are clear that Government should not restrict anyone’s freedom of speech or right to practise a faith. These are core values that help to make our country great. However we shouldn’t allow the extremist voice to go unchallenged, causing harm to our society and promoting hatred and division.

    The Government has engaged on the strategy, and will continue to engage with partners – including faith groups, communities and civic society groups on the new proposed powers to tackle the most dangerous extremists. This provides an opportunity to consult on the proposed powers further, and ensure that sufficient safeguards are in place to protect our rights to free speech and debate.

  • Christopher Chope – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Christopher Chope – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Christopher Chope on 2016-01-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what representations she has made to her French counterparts on the proposed construction of a new camp for migrants close to Dieppe.

    James Brokenshire

    The management of migrant camps in northern France is the responsibility of the French Government. The Home Office is in regular contact with the French authorities and will continue to engage with them on managing port security and dealing with the migrant pressures.

    We are not aware of any proposals to build a migrant camp in Dieppe.

  • Gerald Howarth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Gerald Howarth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gerald Howarth on 2016-01-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to paragraph 113 of the Government’s Counter-Extremism Strategy, published in October 2015, what definition her Department uses of extremism; and what steps she is taking to ensure that that definition does not close down debate or limit free speech.

    Karen Bradley

    The Government definition of extremism is ‘vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.’ We have been consistent on this since 2011 and have reaffirmed this definition in the Counter-Extremism Strategy.

    The overwhelming majority of people in this country support these values and condemn those who try to undermine them.

    The Government would not consider the ‘claim’ that an individual’s religion is ‘the only one true faith’ to be extremist.

    We are clear that Government should not restrict anyone’s freedom of speech or right to practise a faith. These are core values that help to make our country great. However we shouldn’t allow the extremist voice to go unchallenged, causing harm to our society and promoting hatred and division.

    The Government has engaged on the strategy, and will continue to engage with partners – including faith groups, communities and civic society groups on the new proposed powers to tackle the most dangerous extremists. This provides an opportunity to consult on the proposed powers further, and ensure that sufficient safeguards are in place to protect our rights to free speech and debate.

  • Christopher Chope – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Christopher Chope – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Christopher Chope on 2016-01-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will make it the policy of the Government to refer to the European Court of Justice the failure of the French government to register non-EU citizens in France who are in need of international protection.

    James Brokenshire

    All migrants in France who wish to seek international protection should do so in France. In accordance with the Joint Ministerial Declaration of August 2015, we continue to work closely with France on a range of migration and security issues and have no plans to change this constructive approach.

    The French Government is committed to meeting its EU and international obligations and has opened up new places in its asylum system for those that claim asylum in Calais.

  • Gerald Howarth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Gerald Howarth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gerald Howarth on 2016-01-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Government’s Counter-Extremism Strategy, published in October 2015, what her definition is of non-violent expressions of religious belief which are (a) extreme and (b) not extreme.

    Karen Bradley

    The Government definition of extremism is ‘vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.’ We have been consistent on this since 2011 and have reaffirmed this definition in the Counter-Extremism Strategy.

    The overwhelming majority of people in this country support these values and condemn those who try to undermine them.

    The Government would not consider the ‘claim’ that an individual’s religion is ‘the only one true faith’ to be extremist.

    We are clear that Government should not restrict anyone’s freedom of speech or right to practise a faith. These are core values that help to make our country great. However we shouldn’t allow the extremist voice to go unchallenged, causing harm to our society and promoting hatred and division.

    The Government has engaged on the strategy, and will continue to engage with partners – including faith groups, communities and civic society groups on the new proposed powers to tackle the most dangerous extremists. This provides an opportunity to consult on the proposed powers further, and ensure that sufficient safeguards are in place to protect our rights to free speech and debate.