Independent Office for Police Conduct
Baroness Doocey Excerpts(4 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Independent Office for Police Conduct is accountable to Ministers, as it was when the Opposition were in Government. There has been a recommendation from a review of the Cabinet Office’s public bodies review programme. That review was published in March 2024, when the noble Lord’s Government were in office. It looked at the whole question of the IOPC’s governance, accountability, efficiency and efficacy. There were 93 recommendations in that report, 73 of which have been accepted by the IOPC. The remaining recommendations were in his Government’s in-tray. They are now being reviewed and will be implemented shortly by this Government. Included in them is the method by which the IOPC is accountable to Ministers and therefore to this House and the House of Commons.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Lib Dem Benches next.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, over the last year, the IOPC has made a range of recommendations to the police about things such as strip-searching children and suspicionless stop and search. All the recommendations have been accepted by the police. Who is responsible for making sure that the recommendations that were accepted will be implemented? Will the Government publish the information so that we can all be sure that when recommendations are accepted, they are carried out in practice? As the Minister will know, this is not always the case. A lot of recommendations are accepted and then totally ignored.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is the responsibility of police chiefs, police and crime commissioners, and mayors in areas where the mayors are responsible, such as the Mayor of Greater Manchester, the Mayor of London and others, to implement recommendations made by the IOPC. I assure the noble Baroness that, ultimately, the buck stops here.
Anti-social Behaviour and Shoplifting
Baroness Doocey Excerpts(6 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As always, shoplifting takes place for a range of reasons. But I will not excuse shoplifting and shop theft under any circumstances, because they are still crimes. I grew up on a very poor estate in Liverpool and in Cheshire. It was not acceptable to shoplift then and it is not acceptable now. We need to ensure that we tackle that by having neighbourhood policing, a greater emphasis and focus for the police on shop theft and greater support to retailers. I appreciate the noble Earl’s view on poverty: we look at poverty in the round and put measures in for a range of reasons to lift people out of poverty, to ensure that they can live reasonable, productive and effective lives.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has said that, before introducing respect orders, the Government will run a number of pilots, which is a very good idea. But current laws on anti-social behaviour have never been thoroughly reviewed and the Home Office does not even keep records on how they are being used at the moment. So, before the Government introduce these new respect orders, will they agree to review the current laws and how they are working, so that lessons learned could be used to inform the pilots?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that comment. We will keep all legislation under review. Again, after 14 years out of office, we want to review some of the measures: how they have been utilised and what can be done to improve community resilience. The most important thing we can do is certainly pilot the respect orders, but a really important issue will be the 13,000 neighbourhood police and community support officers, who can embed themselves more in the community, can look at what responses are required, can work with people such as shopkeepers in relation to the shop theft that my noble friend Lady Hazarika mentioned, and can work with the community to look at what could best be utilised to gain the support of the community in reducing crime.
Domestic Abuse: Victims and Survivors
Baroness Doocey Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for securing this debate. The Prime Minster has pledged to halve violence against women and girls within 10 years. At the moment, police receive one call every minute about domestic abuse. If the Government achieve their aim of cutting this by half within 10 years, that means the police will receive one call every two minutes about domestic violence. This is not going to give comfort to the 2 million women who, every year, are victims of male violence, because this scourge on our society accounts for around one-fifth of all murders, as well as a rising number of suspected victim suicides.
Yet, the scale of this problem is still not widely understood, and exposure to extreme porn and misogyny is pushing violence against women to epidemic proportions. Criminal justice is not the whole answer; our justice system must step up and do much better for victims.
Domestic abuse happens in relationships and is often complex, yet too many police first responders are still failing to identify what offences have occurred and to respond appropriately. Too many still minimise the risk and harm experienced, failing to understand why a woman might have little choice but to stay with her abuser.
We welcome the Government’s new protection orders, but if the police do not get that first call right, opportunities to impose them will continue to be missed. Currently, orders are rarely used and poorly enforced. This must change, with specialists embedded with front-line officers to build victims’ trust and identify what type of order, if any, is appropriate.
Then, there is the absolute scandal of court backlogs. Domestic abuse hearings are currently being listed more than two years ahead, but most victims do not remain in the process for two months, let alone two years. Almost half withdraw within five days of reporting an incident, and the majority drop out before a charge is even filed. Recognising this, one police force recently piloted a programme to get all domestic abuse cases before court within two weeks, many within 72 hours. Women were turning up with black eyes, and the early guilty plea rate was remarkable. But without enough court space, sadly, the pilot was cut short.
It is also critical that sentencing levels for domestic abuse-related incidents do not dip in the face of prison capacity concerns. Unfortunately, a number of domestic abusers have been freed under the Government’s early release scheme, largely because England and Wales do not have a specific offence of domestic abuse. Instead, these cases are prosecuted under general offences such as actual bodily harm or common assault. So the Liberal Democrats this week have tabled a Bill which would put into law a specific set of domestic abuse-aggravated offences, and I hope the Government will support it.
Having a 10-year plan is not the answer. We need a repeat of the swift justice that we saw following the summer riots. The rioters were stopped in their tracks because they knew that there was a will to identify, charge and prosecute them immediately. If it could be done then, it can be done now.
Police Act 1997 (Authorisations to Interfere with Property: Relevant Offence) Regulations 2025
Baroness Doocey Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, there is no doubt that our laws need to be kept updated to reflect the evolving security threat, the speed at which technology is developing, and the increasingly unstable global situation. So, on balance, we accept that both these instruments are proportionate and will support them.
Our concerns around the National Security Act regulations relate to the knowledge test for these offences, given the steep penalties involved. Does the Minister recognise that the sensitivity of a site might not always be obvious, and that a site’s sensitivity can be fluid, particularly in the case of military vehicles? Could he provide some clarity around the kinds of restricted areas the legislation will apply to, and give assurances that a reasonable person—for example, innocently flying a drone in the countryside—will be protected?
In relation to the Police Act regulations, my understanding is that these allow the police to use counter-drone measures against an unmanned aircraft flying over sensitive military sites, and I have a number of questions in this area. Who has responsibility to deal with unidentified drones around these sites? The military already has its own counter-drone capability; will the police powers run alongside that?
Last year, there were almost 400 police drones operating, of which more than two-thirds were made by DJI, a Chinese firm that the US has linked to the Chinese military—although the company denies this. The previous year, the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner warned that the UK police estate was “shot through” with Chinese-made surveillance drones, used by 23 of the 31 police forces operating drone cameras. At that time, the National Police Chiefs’ Council said it would carry out the necessary review to ensure that national security standards were being met. Perhaps the Minister could say whether that review was carried out.
Just five months ago, West Midlands Police told a magazine that its current drone fleet included 12 DJIs, as well as two made by Autel, another Chinese-based company. Autel was also supplying drones to Nottinghamshire Police and Wiltshire Police, before it was sanctioned by the British Government last month for arming Russia to fight in Ukraine. In light of this, is the Minister satisfied that the police are working with drone providers which can be trusted and whether there are measures in place to ensure that these drones cannot be used to monitor or collect information on critical UK infrastructure?
The drone industry is booming, with estimates that there could be over 76,000 commercial drones in UK skies by 2030—so these security concerns will not go away. China is currently way ahead of everyone else in this area, with DJI the world’s largest commercial drone manufacturer. So it is vital the Government do all they can to support the UK drone industry, which is already responsible for several world firsts.
We support the legislation, but our focus must be on ensuring that our police have the right tools and expertise to counter these threats, wherever they arise. We should heed the lesson of the Trojan horse and ensure that any “spy in the sky” is not already in our midst, starting with the security of our own police drones.
Police Officers: Recruitment
Baroness Doocey Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the Met is not the only police force that is struggling; most police forces are struggling. This is a legacy of a decade of expecting the police to cover the work of other public services, which are underfunded and overwhelmed by demand—for example, mental health, child protection and youth services—because there is nobody else to pick this up. The previous Government knew the pressure the police were under but failed to fund them to deal with it. Does the Minister agree that only full-scale police reform will deliver the type of neighbourhood policing that local communities are crying out for?
Guns Manufactured by 3D Printers
Baroness Doocey Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his helpful intervention. I say quite simply again that 3D-printed firearms are captured by existing firearms legislation. If a 3D-printed firearm is made, it is treated in exactly the same way as any other type of illegal firearm. So they are covered by the legislation, but the suggestions he made are worthy of consideration. We keep those matters under review. Again, there will be opportunities in this Session to look at those issues as a potential police and crime Bill goes through this House.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the barrier for acquiring these weapons has been lowered by advancing technology, with criminals, extremists and everyone else being capable of making these guns in a shed or in their own home. Does the Minister accept that it is not good enough to rely on a Private Member’s Bill to tighten the law in this area, and that the Government really need to act as a matter of urgency on this?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am not aware that the Government are relying on a Private Member’s Bill. There is a Private Member’s Bill coming forward, but it is not a Government-sponsored Bill; it is being undertaken by a Back-Bencher in the House of Commons. We will reflect on that legislation, look at what is needed and make sure that, if there are loopholes, we tie them up. Ultimately, legislation is there to say that firearms are illegal, and there are severe penalties for the ownership and distribution of those illegal firearms. If there are gaps in the legislation along the lines that noble Lords have mentioned, we will review that in due course next year.
Respect Orders and Anti-social Behaviour
Baroness Doocey Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to the House. As Conservatives, we stand against anti-social behaviour in all its forms. It is not right that people feel unsafe in their communities and that the consequences of anti-social behaviour are felt by shops, businesses and residents alike. We welcome all efforts to tackle anti-social behaviour, but I ask the Minister whether he believes that respect orders are anything
“more than a press release or a rebrand”,—[Official Report, Commons, 27/11/24; col. 794.]
as the honourable Member for Stockton West said in the other place. Does the Minister think that respect orders are necessary, given that they are near-identical to existing powers held by the police?
We completely reject the notion that the previous Conservative Government was anything but the party of law and order. That Government launched the anti-social behaviour action plan, backed by £160 million of funding and with over 100,000 hours of police and another uniform patrols undertaken to tackle anti-social behaviour hotspots. Given that the Minister’s party seems keen on releasing serious offenders early, how does this align with its plan to decrease anti-social behaviour? Surely many of these dangerous individuals, who have been released on to our streets before they have served their sentence in full, will need more than a respect order to prevent them reoffending.
The Minister for Policing told the House of Commons that
“respect orders are different from criminal behaviour orders”.
She continued:
“Criminal behaviour orders are attached where there is a conviction, and the Crown Prosecution Service applies in court for that criminal behaviour order. Respect orders will not require a conviction”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/11/24; col. 795.]
Will the Minister outline what sort of behaviour will be covered by a respect order and what the penalties will be for them?
The previous Conservative Government created over 20,000 police officers and fulfilled our manifesto commitment on this. By March this year, the police headcount hit its highest ever number on record. We are most definitely the party of law and order, and I will repeat the question asked in the other place, which was left unanswered by the Minister there—perhaps the Minister will answer me now. It was
“the last Government increased funding for frontline policing by £922 million for this year—will the Government match that increase next year?”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/11/24; col. 795.]
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, a return to proper neighbourhood policing, with officers who know and are known to the communities that they serve, is absolutely essential to tackle the misery caused by anti-social behaviour.
The part of the Statement about respect orders raises a number of issues, which we will return to, no doubt, when we look at the policing Bill. For example, what burden of proof will be required for the courts to approve such an order, and how will police work with communities to ensure that repeated reporting and gathering of evidence has the desired effect? How will the courts deal with applications in a timely manner, given the enormous backlog of cases already before them? What will be the bar for anyone who breaches these orders to find themselves in jail? It is an easy headline to say that offenders will end up in prison, but there is currently such an acute shortage of prison spaces that the Government are already having to release people early. What safeguards will be in the Bill to ensure that these orders do not inadvertently reinvent the Vagrancy Act, in effect, criminalising homelessness?
I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to removing the de facto threshold of £200 for attracting any action on goods stolen from shops. Last week, one of my friends went into a local pharmacy, where she was picking up a prescription. A few minutes later, a young man walked in, carrying a very large bag, and set to clearing the shelves of all the over-the-counter medication. When somebody who was standing there mentioned the police, he just laughed. Afterwards, the staff said that he comes in on a regular basis but that they are too scared to try to stop him.
Sadly, this is not an isolated story: it is part of a rising tide sweeping the country. The numbers are staggering. In 2023, the Association of Convenience Stores recorded 5.6 million incidents of shoplifting—more than a fivefold increase from the previous year. That is 46,000 thefts every day.
Can the Minister say anything about how the Government intend to deploy technology to make it easier for retailers to log crime by repeat offenders, thereby helping to build a picture that can be used to prosecute? I took a quick look at the Met’s reporting tool over the weekend. The website estimates that it takes 15 minutes to report a non-violent shoplifting offence. I cannot imagine that many shopkeepers, particularly those with small shops, will spend 15 minutes reporting a crime that almost invariably will not end in a prosecution. Will the Minister look at introducing a national scheme for reporting shoplifting, where retailers can quickly access a dedicated platform and report crime in just a few minutes? No one wants to watch people walking out of a shop without paying for goods or, indeed, racing down the footpath on an e-scooter. It unsettles everyone, leaves the most vulnerable feeling unsafe and chips away at our collective sense of security.
I hope the Minister will welcome suggestions and inputs from all sides when we come to discuss the Bill.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful for the contributions of both His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I reassure the House that we will have plenty of opportunity to discuss these matters because this Statement, in effect, trails legislation that will come into effect at a later date, if passed by both Houses. So we will consider it over the next few weeks and months.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, is against anti-social behaviour. I would expect nothing less of him. It is a shame that when in office his party reduced the number of PCSOs by 55% since 2010. It is a shame that confidence in policing fell by 65% when he was at the Home Office and his colleagues were in office. It is a shame that trust in policing fell by 69% over the same period. It is a shame that shop theft, which the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, raised, has risen by 29% over the past year. It is a shame that the former Minister refused to implement suggestions that we will bring forward in the Bill on shop theft and attacks on shop workers. It is a shame that he took 14 years to reinstate the number of police officers in service when he took office in 2010. When I was Police Minister—
Police Reform
Baroness Doocey Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Yes, the Government are reviewing the guidelines on non-crime hate incidents. We will work with the police college and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to review that. The police should concentrate on serious crime, street crime and neighbourhood policing accordingly.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, additional investment in neighbourhood policing is of course most welcome, but it is also crucial that forces have adequate support staff, to free up front-line officers. The uplift programme’s ring-fenced funding model forced police officers into back-office roles, damaging efficiency and morale. Does the Minister agree that greater flexibility is needed to deliver neighbourhood policing—for example, allowing chief constables to decide the most operationally effective workforce mix of both officers and back-room staff, crucially without them then incurring financial penalties?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government are committed, as part of our manifesto commitments, to encouraging and supplying resources to fund 13,000 neighbourhood police officers. How police and crime commissioners and chief constables determine the use of that resource is for them. We will have the overall policing Statement in December, but last week my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced an extra £264 million for policing, a £0.5 billion fund to support wider policing, and additional measures on respect orders and anti-social behaviour. I hope the noble Baroness will await the Statement in December, but I hear what she says about the flexibility we require.
Counter-Extremism Strategy
Baroness Doocey Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government condemn all attacks against all communities, because people have a right to live their lives according to their own beliefs and religious outlooks. We will certainly look to protect all communities. In fact, the Government have allocated resources to support particularly vulnerable places such as mosques and synagogues. We intend to ensure that we prevent radicalisation, and that means a wide-ranging Prevent programme, but we are sensitive to the fact that we do not wish to stigmatise people at a very young age.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, counterterrorism police say there is a clear link between extremism and domestic abuse, not helped by the amount of misogyny that young men are watching online. With one woman in the UK killed by a man every three days, will the Government commit to looking again at the Law Commission’s recommendations on hate crime to better protect women and girls?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My honourable friend Jess Phillips is the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls, and she is currently drawing up a range of strategies. If there is a link—and I am not aware of one at this Dispatch Box today—between the issues the noble Baroness has raised, that will form part of my honourable friend’s strategy. I hope the noble Baroness will rest assured that addressing domestic violence and the perpetrators of it is at the forefront of the Government’s agenda, and we plan to halve violence against women and girls during the course of this Parliament.
Non-crime Hate Incidents
Baroness Doocey Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Non-crime hate incidents are not treated as crime, and they are not a big part of daily police work. The College of Policing—which the noble Lord will know well—and the inspectorate are making it clear that there needs to be a common-sense and consistent approach to the way in which they are recorded. But I hope I can assure the noble Lord that this Government are about securing additional police support to tackle the policing of neighbourhood crime and to give local support to the big issues of shoplifting and burglary, as well as domestic violence and violence against women and girls. That is a core part of the mission, and he can hold the Government to account and rest assured that we will do that over the course of the next four and a half years.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the new code of practice highlights the need to protect free speech. However, the police watchdog has raised concerns that officers handling these reports lack the training, capacity and experience to make such complex decisions and that this is placing too much responsibility on them. What are the Government doing to address these concerns?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those comments. I hope I can reassure her that the College of Policing and the inspectorate will be examining these issues as part of the police performance review that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is initiating. There are important matters to examine regarding how this works, but I go back to the first principle. We have made it clear that our priorities are safer streets and neighbourhood policing, but that NCHIs are part of building a bigger picture of what potential hate incidents are—against not only people’s religion but their sexual preference. They are not acceptable, they need to be monitored and lessons can be learned to improve policing responses in the long term.