R40 – Ministerial Report from the Secretary of State for the Home Department Watch

This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 10 months ago
#1
R40 – Ministerial Report from the Secretary of State for the Home Department
Ministerial Report for the Home Office

Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary for the Home Department
The Rt. Hon CoffeeGeek MP



Preamble
Creating a fairer, more integrated society.

As Britain embraces the 21st century, this country faces new hurdles to overcome. We are leaving the European Union (EU) and will soon embark on our post-Brexit journey to, hopefully, a very prosperous nation. As we do this, our nation faces societal issues that this department will endeavour to address. Such as the growing amount of vulnerable individuals in our society who seek protection and do not get it - this is something that should admittedly, never occur in a country like ours. Ensuring society moves from strength to strength is not an easy task, but with the policies proclaimed in this Ministerial Report, the Home Office is confident that these policies will set the foundations for a more fairer, integrated Britain.

Immigration After the UK’s Departure From the European Union (EU)

When the UK departs from the EU, the Home Office will be implementing a new immigration system that will take into account the UK’s economic and social needs. Immigration will be brought to sustainable levels that take into account the needs aforementioned. Whilst it’s important that the level of immigration changes after our departure from the EU, it must not be brought down to levels where it will jeopardize the UK economy and fail to meet our social needs. This is something that should be recognised, especially if the UK departs from the EU with no withdrawal agreement. To bring immigration to sustainable levels, freedom of movement will end once we depart from the EU in March 2019. The points-based 5 tier visa system for migrants outside the European Economic Area (EEA) will be applied to migrants inside the EEA after our departure from the EU.

The cap on the number of non-EU Tier 2 visas granted will be removed and EU Tier 2 visas will also have no cap once we depart from the EU in March 2019. This should help UK firms recruit skilled workers abroad without restrictions from the Home Office.

Combatting the Growing Threat of Cybercrime

Crime has also changed. Fraud and computer misuse is now more likely than robbery and theft. Despite a decrease in computer misuse offences, we’ve seen that hacking hasn’t changed. Therefore, the Home Office will expand Cyber Specials to help combat cybercrime in the UK and will ensure a Cyber Special is in place in all police forces. To further encourage cyberists to help the government combat cybercrime, our ministry will double the number of places for the £4,000 CyberFirst bursary from 250 to 500 for 2019 which will cost £1m.

Protecting the Most Vulnerable in Society

Despite thousands of men suffering from domestic abuse each year there are few organisations that offer refuge for male victims and spaces for them to stay. It is our duty to help both male and female victims of domestic violence, and to help address the injustice this Ministry will be allocating £20.8m solely towards male refuges to help expand the number of bed spaces available.

This ministry also believes that Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) is a practice that should not take place because babies cannot consent, and will therefore seek to ban MGM, unless it needs to be performed for medical reasons.

Modern slavery is a blight on our society and this Ministry intends to tackle it with rigour by abolishing tied visas which leaves the most vulnerable locked into slavery. Furthermore, the financial benefits of human trafficking outweigh the cost of a possible 14 years in prison for traffickers and therefore a harsher approach is needed with this issue. Therefore, the Home Office will seek, through legislative measures, to increase the maximum sentence for human trafficking from 14 years to life.

Financial appendix

Doubling the number of places for the CyberFirst bursary will cost £1m.

Expanding the number of bed spaces in male refugees will cost £20.8m.

Total costs: £1,000,000 + £20,800,000 = £21.8m
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 10 months ago
#2
Re topics requiring further legislation, I presume this includes the reforms to EEA immigration rules, plus the ban on MGM and the increase in the sentence for human trafficking,
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 10 months ago
#3
Oh, and the Shadow Home Secretary viljo is requested to respond on behalf of the Opposition.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 10 months ago
#4
I'll save a more thorough response for when it isn't Friday night, but let's get things started with where the figures were derived from given the £20.8m seems rather arbitrary, also 250 bursaries for £4,000 will almost certainly not cost only £1m
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 10 months ago
#5
Mr Speaker, I can say that I don’t necessarily disagree with the policies presented here, but the problems with this report are twofold:

Firstly Mr Speaker, the lack of references to support the costing of this report make the figures confusing and seemingly arbitrary as my right honourable friend Jammy Duel has stated.

Perhaps the Secretary of State could enlighten the House as to his reasoning behind the costing figures and provide references to support his reasoning?

My second concern is with regards to the scarcity of this report. It has a grand total of three policy areas and a preamble filled with waffle intended to pad out the contents of the report. Could CoffeeGeek perhaps explain why this statement seems so thin in content and why more time was not taken to develop policies at the Home Department?
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 10 months ago
#6
Short and rather to the point. I don't really have a lot to say to these pretty uncontroversial and relatively low-cost policies.

One thing of note to me is that the government wishes to ban MGM which is actually something I've been planning on doing myself, so I would like to extend an offer to CoffeeGeek to collaborate on a bill in this area.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 10 months ago
#7
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Short and rather to the point. I don't really have a lot to say to these pretty uncontroversial and low-costing policies.

One thing of note to me is that the government wishes to ban MGM which is actually something I've been planning on doing myself, so I would like to extend an offer to CoffeeGeek to collaborate on a bill in this area.
Don’t take the costing at face value, I’m dubious as to these figures especially given that they haven’t been referenced but I’ll withhold judgement to give the Minister chance to explain himself.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 10 months ago
#8
(Original post by Connor27)
Don’t take the costing at face value, I’m dubious as to these figures especially given that they haven’t been referenced but I’ll withhold judgement to give the Minister chance to explain himself.
Well 250 times £4,000 is £1 million, so that checks out.

According to this, a room in a refuge costs £211 a week to run, so the £20.8 million would fund 1,895.7 rooms for a year which seems reasonable,
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 10 months ago
#9
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Well 250 times £4,000 is £1 million, so that checks out.

According to this, a room in a refuge costs £211 a week to run, so the £20.8 million would fund 1,895.7 rooms for a year which seems reasonable,
But it isn't 4000x250, it's just the other bit isn't easy to work out, difficult to the extent even I'm not going to bother trying
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 10 months ago
#10
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Well 250 times £4,000 is £1 million, so that checks out.

According to this, a room in a refuge costs £211 a week to run, so the £20.8 million would fund 1,895.7 rooms for a year which seems reasonable,
Also why was ~1900 decided upon? Could be a different coat figure was used, either way it appears arbitrary, no mention of numbers is made, not even indirectly. We don't know how many beds, nor at what per unit cost, just the final figure.
0
username1751857
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 10 months ago
#11
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
I'll save a more thorough response for when it isn't Friday night, but let's get things started with where the figures were derived from given the £20.8m seems rather arbitrary, also 250 bursaries for £4,000 will almost certainly not cost only £1m
£20.8m is not arbitrary. I did the costing slightly different to Catus but I took the figure of £300,000 a year for that refuge linked in the guardian article and divided it by the bed spaces it has which is 35 which showed me the costs per bed. Then I multiplied it by 2500 minus the available beds we have for men. It's very rough costing but I imagine it's in around 20 million anyways, possibly less because women do have extra costs such as sanitary products... So it wasn't arbitrary, just very very rough because there's not a lot of information out there about the costs.

Yeah it will probably cost more with all the other things that are connected into making those bursary places but I bet you can't even find that information.

(Original post by Connor27)
Mr Speaker, I can say that I don’t necessarily disagree with the policies presented here, but the problems with this report are twofold:

Firstly Mr Speaker, the lack of references to support the costing of this report make the figures confusing and seemingly arbitrary as my right honourable friend Jammy Duel has stated.

Perhaps the Secretary of State could enlighten the House as to his reasoning behind the costing figures and provide references to support his reasoning?

My second concern is with regards to the scarcity of this report. It has a grand total of three policy areas and a preamble filled with waffle intended to pad out the contents of the report. Could CoffeeGeek perhaps explain why this statement seems so thin in content and why more time was not taken to develop policies at the Home Department?
I don't think the lack of references are a huge problem but if you want to ask for referencing I'm happy to provide it to you. And it's not arbitrary, see my reply to Jammy above. Just because you don't see the working out of the costing doesn't mean it's arbitrary figures.

Here's the spreadsheet I just noticed I forgot to link in the report.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

And references for costs:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...hey-could-mean
https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/articles/cyb...bursary-scheme

You don't see a lot of statements/reports like these from the Home Office and if you do they're not lengthy because to be quite honest, there's no point changing things for the sake of it. Those three policy areas are things that stuck out to me and what I think the ministry should be focusing on. This report contains 8 policies even though it's short and also a lot of the stuff I wanted to do in the department has already been done with legislation - there's no point mentioning it for the sake of it. I think that it's something different, recognises the vulnerability of women but also men which has forever been ignored, straight to the point and it's not padded because if it was those three sections of policies would have been way longer. I intended to keep the actual report readable and the preamble is a good summary of what the report does. If you wanted me to remove padding even more I could have done bullet points but then someone will moan about that too... can't make everyone happy...

(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Short and rather to the point. I don't really have a lot to say to these pretty uncontroversial and relatively low-cost policies.

One thing of note to me is that the government wishes to ban MGM which is actually something I've been planning on doing myself, so I would like to extend an offer to CoffeeGeek to collaborate on a bill in this area.
That was the intention. Great!

That's a good idea. I'm open to discussing the policy more in private channels and looking at ways we can make a nice bill out of it.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 10 months ago
#12
(Original post by CoffeeGeek)
£20.8m is not arbitrary. I did the costing slightly different to Catus but I took the figure of £300,000 a year for that refuge linked in the guardian article and divided it by the bed spaces it has which is 35 which showed me the costs per bed. Then I multiplied it by 2500 minus the available beds we have for men. It's very rough costing but I imagine it's in around 20 million anyways, possibly less because women do have extra costs such as sanitary products... So it wasn't arbitrary, just very very rough because there's not a lot of information out there about the costs.

Yeah it will probably cost more with all the other things that are connected into making those bursary places but I bet you can't even find that information.



I don't think the lack of references are a huge problem but if you want to ask for referencing I'm happy to provide it to you. And it's not arbitrary, see my reply to Jammy above. Just because you don't see the working out of the costing doesn't mean it's arbitrary figures.

Here's the spreadsheet I just noticed I forgot to link in the report.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

And references for costs:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...hey-could-mean
https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/articles/cyb...bursary-scheme

You don't see a lot of statements/reports like these from the Home Office and if you do they're not lengthy because to be quite honest, there's no point changing things for the sake of it. Those three policy areas are things that stuck out to me and what I think the ministry should be focusing on. This report contains 8 policies even though it's short and also a lot of the stuff I wanted to do in the department has already been done with legislation - there's no point mentioning it for the sake of it. I think that it's something different, recognises the vulnerability of women but also men which has forever been ignored, straight to the point and it's not padded because if it was those three sections of policies would have been way longer. I intended to keep the actual report readable and the preamble is a good summary of what the report does. If you wanted me to remove padding even more I could have done bullet points but then someone will moan about that too... can't make everyone happy...



That was the intention. Great!

That's a good idea. I'm open to discussing the policy more in private channels and looking at ways we can make a nice bill out of it.
I thank the minister for readily providing references and for his speedy response.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 10 months ago
#13
(Original post by CoffeeGeek)
That was the intention. Great!

That's a good idea. I'm open to discussing the policy more in private channels and looking at ways we can make a nice bill out of it.
Why 2500 and in what guardian article (if Catus' link is the article why isn't it in the OP)?

We also have that CyberFirst is already being expanded beyond 250. The intention is for there to be 1000 enrolled in 2020. Some included are just doing a batchelors degree (3 years), some an integrated Masters (4 years) and you can start after your first year if you achieved a 2:1 or better in your first year (2 or 3 years); unless everyone enrolled is doing an integrated Masters and has been a recipient from their first year the cohorts are necessarily expanding above 250
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 10 months ago
#14
Another one, the application deadline for 2019 was a week ago
0
username1751857
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 10 months ago
#15
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Why 2500 and in what guardian article (if Catus' link is the article why isn't it in the OP)?

We also have that CyberFirst is already being expanded beyond 250. The intention is for there to be 1000 enrolled in 2020. Some included are just doing a batchelors degree (3 years), some an integrated Masters (4 years) and you can start after your first year if you achieved a 2:1 or better in your first year (2 or 3 years); unless everyone enrolled is doing an integrated Masters and has been a recipient from their first year the cohorts are necessarily expanding above 250
Because the aim is to get the number of bed spaces for male refuges close to those for female refuges which is nearing 4000. It isn't linked in the OP because it's not something that crossed my mind, not that it's important anyways because it's a short report which means it's not a problem to ask for a link.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...hey-could-mean

Therefore your point is?
0
username1751857
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 10 months ago
#16
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Another one, the application deadline for 2019 was a week ago
The plan was for it to come out after the Budget which has been pushed forward. Not everything goes according to schedule.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 10 months ago
#17
Next up, the bursary includes a minimum of 8 weeks a summer paid placement on £250 a week plus some expenses, so that's another £500k before expenses and other employment costs (another 25k for NI, for instance)
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 10 months ago
#18
(Original post by CoffeeGeek)
The plan was for it to come out after the Budget which has been pushed forward. Not everything goes according to schedule.
Isn't hard to change a date when the chancellor is incompetent
0
username1751857
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 10 months ago
#19
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Next up, the bursary includes a minimum of 8 weeks a summer paid placement on £250 a week plus some expenses, so that's another £500k before expenses and other employment costs (another 25k for NI, for instance)
:yy:

(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Isn't hard to change a date when the chancellor is incompetent
He's competent and this Ministerial Report was not on my mind everyday before it's submission today so maybe if I checked that more then I could've done that but admittedly I'm a bit lazy...
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 10 months ago
#20
(Original post by CoffeeGeek)
Because the aim is to get the number of bed spaces for male refuges close to those for female refuges which is nearing 4000. It isn't linked in the OP because it's not something that crossed my mind, not that it's important anyways because it's a short report which means it's not a problem to ask for a link.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...hey-could-mean

Therefore your point is?
Is there parity in demand? While in an ideal world there will be refuges for everybody who needs one the fact of the matter is that demand is not equal, suppose, for the sake of argument, male demand only requires 3000 spaces you're wasting a large amount of money just for the sake of nominal parity. Not going to complain about more love for the men but supply should be based on demand, not nominal parity.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (22)
24.44%
No (68)
75.56%

Watched Threads

View All