Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL]

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

The noble Lord caught me unawares there. I thought I had a little longer, but there we go: it is all part of the fun.

I am grateful to noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lady Lister for securing this debate on the Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill. We have had some discussion today, and I say straightaway that I am pleased to have my ankles chewed by the terriers. Despite voting on every occasion against hunting with dogs, I am pleased to give this opportunity to check; it is perfectly legitimate and I welcome it. I did not expect to be compared to Good King Wenceslas today, but I will take that from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, as the second cheer of the day and will refer to the third cheer in due course.

I am particularly pleased to tell my noble friend Lady Lister that I pay tribute to the voluntary organisations that she has prayed in aid, the large number of voluntary organisations that have made submissions to the debate today and those that pick up some of the strain of the 28-day period that currently exists—as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London mentioned. The Government want to make sure that the transition between asylum accommodation and other accommodation for those asylum seekers who are recognised as refugees and granted leave to remain is smooth and supportive.

I acknowledge the huge pressures on the asylum system. I find it very strange that the only discordant voice in today’s debate was from the Opposition Front Bench—the noble Lord, Lord Murray. He seems to forget that this Government have been in office since 4 July; the pressures that we are facing on hotel and asylum accommodation were generated through the actions of his Government. The hotels that were nil in 2019 are now 200. Yes, they have gone up by seven since July, but I remind the noble Lord that there is a real commitment by this Government to reduce and end that hotel accommodation. In many ways, the discussions that we are having today are part of that direction of travel.

I do not want to politicise this debate, and it has not been politicised, but I have to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, from the Front Bench: look at the noble Lord’s record. Look at what we are inheriting and having to deal with. Speeding up asylum claims, ending hotels, establishing a Border Force security team, signing documents this week with Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands, and the work with Iraq—all those things are designed to start to pick up the mess that we inherited only five months ago. I will end the party-political knockabout at that point and return to the consensus that there was from all sides of the Chamber in the rest of the debate.

The focus of this debate was the 56-day period that my noble friend mentioned. Clause 1(2) of the Bill determines that the 28 days shall be 56. The current process is that, following the service of an asylum decision, an individual continues to be an asylum seeker for the purpose of asylum support until the end of the regular prescribed period set out by regulations.

Let me just answer a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth: the period is 28 days from when the individual is notified, but we think we have legal support for a pilot extending that to 56 days. If the pilot is extended in due course, we do not think we would be open to challenge but, at some point, we would have to bring an order to both Houses to regularise that. That is part of the process, and I hope he accepts that it would be done in due course.

A number of contributors mentioned the Home Office. The right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Chelmsford and the Bishop of London, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Blower, and the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord German, welcomed the fact that the pilot in place has moved to 56 days from the point at which individuals are notified of their grant to leave. We expect that measure to be in place until June 2025. The Government have put that pilot in place to support local authorities during a period when we expect an increased volume of asylum decisions to be made.

As a number of colleagues in the House have mentioned, it also coincides with the transition to e-visas for newly recognised refugees. It is important that we do that, and there has been general recognition that the Government moving from 28 to 56 days for the pilot is positive, but we have to evaluate its impact and look at the interim measures to make sure there are clear benefits to the proposal. Again, that has been relatively welcomed from all sides of the House, with the exception of the Opposition Front Bench, as an area to look at.

Some important points were rightly made in the discussion about implementation, evaluation, e-visas et cetera. I will try to cover those now to give some clarity on where we are. Let me take evaluation first, because it was a key point that the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Chelmsford, and others, mentioned, as did my noble friend Lady Lister in her initial contribution. There are certainly criteria that we will look at in the evaluation procedure. We want to look at the provision of asylum move-on liaison officers to support granting asylum and successfully moving on from asylum accommodation and support. We have put in place £2.8 million additional outcome-based funding for select local authorities to support move-on according to prioritised need. We are looking at changes to internal processes with the move-on period and at the downstream legality of changing those issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, mentioned London as an area of particular interest. Again, we will look at that geographical impact in our evaluation. It is important that we take time to evaluate the impact of the interim measure: there will potentially be a look at the net costs to taxpayers, which have been mentioned, before a decision is made on whether to make the measure permanent. It is also important that we look at how we work with local authorities and voluntary agencies, mentioned by a number of noble Peers today, on the transition to e-visas. What does all this mean in practice?

As I have mentioned, the pilot will be in place until June 2025. The evaluation will be undertaken within that period, and we would hope to be able to inform future decisions post June 2025. While I recognise that that does not meet the objectives of Clause 1(2) in the Bill that my noble friend has brought forward, I hope she will recognise that there is recognition of it being an issue which has to be addressed, and that the Government are aware of that issue and are trying to at least examine those pressures in the current circumstances.

In relation to the decision letter, my noble friend and other Peers mentioned access to UKVI accounts and the e-visa move-on period. It is important to note that newly granted refugees will have digital status at the point that a positive decision is made. They will be served after the decision. Newly granted refugees will have a UKVI account created for them. Following this, the case will be sent for discontinuation, and individuals will be sent a discontinuation letter stating an end support date. That date will be either 56 days from when the individual was notified of the decision, which includes the two days for postage that colleagues have mentioned, or 28 days from the date of the discontinuation letter, whichever is the longer. The 56 days in this pilot period will be an issue that we potentially look at.

There have been issues raised about wrong addresses. If a form goes to a wrong address or if there are errors in the e-visa, that will be reflected upon and taken into account. To those who raised digitally excluded individuals, there will be support for them. I recognise that not everybody is digitally proficient, particularly in a language which is not their first. Again, there will be support in accessing e-visas through our assisted digital support service.

Going back to a point that my noble friend Lady Lister mentioned, the interim scheme has been shared with local authorities as well as the NGO voluntary organisation partners. We have been engaging with partners across central and local government, and the evaluation will take place. There are no current plans to publish the details of the pilot on GOV.UK, but we are looking at how we can update that guidance in due course. We want to ensure that a range of partners are involved in that discussion and evaluation so, as a Government, we will return to that in due course.

My noble friend’s Bill also requires the end of support date to be included in the asylum decision letter. While individuals are notified in their grant letter that support will end in 56 days, operational and safeguarding checks currently prevent us outlining the exact date at this point. The only way to implement that approach would be to delay the service of the asylum decision; we do not really want to do that. To prevent late notification of an exact support date, a safeguard is in place whereby individuals can remain on support for at least 28 days from the point when they are issued with their discontinuation letter, which includes the exact date that support will end, regardless of when the asylum decision was served. This is issued only once an individual has been given the ability to access their e-visa. I hope that that will be of interest to noble Lords who raised this.

The move-on support issue, mentioned particularly by my noble friend Lady Blower, is extremely important. Move-on support is available to all individuals through Migrant Help. This includes providing advice on accessing the labour market, applying for universal credit, signposting to local authorities and communications to individuals. Home Office move-on liaison officers will now also support individuals who have been granted refugee status to: understand the steps they need to take once the asylum decision is issued; support them in accessing e-visas via our assisted digital service; and give as much help as possible in relation to, potentially, integration loans that help refugees to secure critical items. Along with the devolved Administrations and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Home Office is looking closely at how we can engage local authorities to ensure that colleagues are supported.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, mentioned the issue of age dispute. I understand the point he is making. If he will allow me, I will seek further clarification with officials at the Home Office. I will discuss it with my colleague Ministers who have direct responsibility for this area and contact him in due course.

While I hope that one or two cheers will be given for what I have said to date about the Government’s approach, I must recognise that I was asked about a third cheer by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, supported by my noble friend Lord Griffiths. May I say that we will probably not get that cheer today? The noble Lord probably expected that when he asked the question. Asylum seekers can do jobs on the UK’s immigration salary list if their claims have been outstanding for at least 12 months, through no fault of their own, but we will have to reflect further as a Government on his question, so I cannot give him cause for a third cheer today. I hope he understands that we have to work our way through the myriad problems and challenges that we are inheriting—I go back to the unhelpful comments from the Opposition Front Bench, which defended a record that does not really bear defence.

We are doing work on the asylum backlog, ending hotels, the change to this pilot, the accommodation investment that we are making to improve Border Force, the closing of Scampton, the “Bibby Stockholm” and other centres, and the revision of contracts and agreements with our European partners and other countries outside Europe, such as Iraq. That is a big agenda, and my colleague Ministers are working through it to the best of their ability.

I hope that today’s progress with the Bill from my noble friend highlighting an issue that the Government have tried to respond to in a positive way, gives this House the ability to reflect on the fact that the direction of travel for the Government is one that I hope most Members will support.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in support of the Bill, as all but one person did. Although the Minister did not give me the Christmas present that I might have liked—I did not really expect that—he did, in a sense, accept the principles behind the Bill.

I will be brief. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, reminded us that we are talking about accepted refugees. She also emphasised the importance of listening to those with lived experience of the move-on period. I am not sure that my noble friend the Minister said anything about that in terms of evaluation. I will read Hansard, but I may have to come back to him on that and a few other details. It is important that the evaluation is not just of a top-down, statistical type but that we listen to what people are going through.

I am not going to get into metaphors about Good King Wenceslas, but I very much agree with the question of the right to work, because it is crucial to integration. If this group had had the right to paid work, the move-on period would be less problematic than it is.

I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and my noble friend Lord Davies for emphasising the extent to which this is particularly experienced in London. But it is experienced not only in London. I live in the east Midlands, where I am a patron of the Nottingham Refugee Forum; I spoke very briefly about this at its recent AGM. The result was like a wildfire telegraph around the east Midlands by people working on this issue, some of whom have written to quite a few noble Lords. This is a real issue in the east Midlands as well, and more widely. It might be experienced more acutely in London but it is not just a London issue; it is much wider than that.

I cannot cover everything that was said, but the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, asked an important question, which I am not sure was answered, about whether or not somebody already in the 28 day-period is covered by this. It seems a bit unfair if one person finds that they have a much shorter period than, say, the person they have been sharing a room with. Perhaps the Minister can look at that. I must admit I had not thought of it, so I thank the noble Baroness for raising it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will look at that point. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for not answering her. I can give her limited reassurance, and I will write to both her and my noble friend Lady Lister on that point. I will also cover the Syria point, which I did not mention in my response because of the lack of time.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend; I realise that it was not possible for him to cover everything in his response. A follow-up letter to everyone who spoke would be very helpful.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Blower who, like many noble Lords, supported the right to work and talked about the impact on children. I am pleased that my fellow terrier the noble Lord, Lord Russell, raised the question of age assessment. I should warn noble Lords that another group of terriers will in the new year be chewing away on the question of age assessment, so they have that joy awaiting them.

I loved the point by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford that a grace period is never for a limited pilot period and that a true period of grace would be permanent. I hope that will be taken back to the Home Office; even for those such as myself who do not have faith, it was a very telling point.

My noble friend Lord Davies asked about research. Will the evaluation try to find out the time that it takes to move on? I have noticed that a point that has not been made by Ministers recently, but that used to be made, is that somehow it is all the fault of the refugee because they do not move fast enough and do not get on with it. That is partly why I chose the particular case study that I did. Here was a young man who did everything he was supposed to do at once and ended up homeless, sleeping in the car park of the asylum hotel he had been in.

Moving on to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, I have been reliably told that, during the period that he was Home Office Minister, there was a 302% increase in the number of refugee households in England owed either a relief or prevention duty after leaving Home Office accommodation. The noble Lord might have wanted to reflect on whether the 28-day period was working satisfactorily. I do not care who introduced it. I am very critical of a whole lot of things that my party introduced—I think it took away the right to work, but that does not make it the correct thing to have done. I am sorry that he did not reflect on that.

The noble Lord talked about costs. As I said, the research suggests that this would save money and achieve net savings. The amount is not huge, at probably £4 million to £7 million a year. The question is who bears the cost. Is it the Home Office? Is it individual vulnerable refugees? Is it local authorities? Is it the voluntary sector? It is a question of where the costs are borne; it is not an extra cost at all.

I will continue to argue, and I think noble Lords agreed, that, welcome as this interim scheme is, the assumption should be that it will be permanent. If it all goes pear-shaped then it may be that we will want to look at it again, but we need to think about how we make it legally permanent. I intend to continue to press the Bill. If the Minister wants three cheers from me, it is a question not just of the right to work but of accepting the Bill. Although he very kindly said that he would be pleased for the terriers to continue to chew at his ankles, I would much prefer not to have to chew at ministerial ankles. I want an outcome—I do not want to carry on chewing, despite the change of Government. I will leave it at that. I commend the Bill to the House.

Domestic Abuse: Victims and Survivors

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, on bringing this debate before the House. As has been seen from the contributions today, there is significant interest and a number of very strong points have been put which the Government will consider. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that we welcome the work done by previous Governments and welcome any support that he, and indeed all Members of this House, can give to the Government to tackle this issue in the longer term.

The important point was made that this takes place at the end of a 16-day period when we have had a very high focus on domestic violence prior to Christmas. It is also important that this House recognises both the work and endorsement of Her Majesty the Queen and the documentary that she has made, and senses the wish of this House to raise the issue and to tackle it with a societal approach. That is a very significant contribution which I very much welcome.

The contributions that we have had all raised a number of different issues. I will try to resolve all those and respond to them in due course; if I cannot, I will write to noble Members about those issues in the meantime.

I want to thank my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, the Minister Jess Phillips and the Minister Alex Davies-Jones for their commitment in developing the plans that I will be outlining now on behalf of the Government, because they are the drivers behind these measures and I want them to be recognised.

In our manifesto, the Government gave a number of key commitments which we will be judged by but which I hope will have the endorsement of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, mentioned the scale of the task, and the metrics of measuring it are extremely important. However, the measures that we have put in place of halving violence against women and girls over 10 years, the specialist workers in 999 control rooms that we committed to in the manifesto, the specialist rape investigation units for England and Wales police forces, the police and other interventions to target repeat offenders, and the specialist support in courts to fast-track and support the early resolution of cases are all important, and they are part of the key manifesto commitments that I will refer to now in more detail. Those are important because, as noble Lords mentioned, in the year to March 2024, over one in four women reported experiencing domestic abuse, as well as one in seven men—to pick up the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, made in an intervention.

The point that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, mentioned about elder abuse is extremely important. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, both mentioned that. Whatever we say about the level of abuse, abuse with older people may be more hidden, and there may be more confusion and more difficulties, especially in seeking help. We should recognise that, and the Government will certainly reflect on it. For many of the individuals concerned, whatever the level of abuse is, it is a daily occurrence and, tragically, as has been mentioned in a number of contributions, the home is not a safe place, nor does the abuse end when the perpetrator leaves the home. The scale, and the stories mentioned by Members of the House today, should shock us all and lead us to what we need to do, which is to raise awareness and policy issues to tackle this around the country.

I was particularly struck that the briefings before the discussions today did not mention the economic impact in the scale of this problem. I was very interested to learn from the former Prime Minister the noble Baroness, Lady May, and from the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, of the recognition of that economic impact. That is an important point to take away from today.

Quite clearly there is a view from the House that, whoever is in government, we make sure to go further and faster. We are still, sadly, nowhere near where we need to be. I give the commitment that the Government I represent here today are committed to changing that. They require the support of Members who have spoken and of the voluntary agencies mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and others to ensure that we achieve the mission of halving violence against women and girls in the decade ahead.

There are a number of points I want to mention. The question of individuals who have been offenders and reoffend is extremely important. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran; the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, in relation to alcohol abuse; and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, in relation to reoffending, all mentioned that as a key issue. This is a Ministry of Justice, Home Office and voluntary sector issue, but we have to look at what interventions we can make to target the most prolific and repeat offenders. It is a particularly important issue.

The police clearly have a vital role to play in this. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans mentioned that, and I endorse the comments that he made. We have just introduced the domestic abuse protection orders—Raneem’s law—in a pilot form. The noble Baroness, Lady May, mentioned that and asked specifically about the full provisions of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 being implemented. I hope I can give her an assurance that the domestic abuse protection orders are the first step on that, and that the Ministry of Justice, which is also party to the Act, is considering full implementation of its Section 62 very shortly. Again, I reach out to her to say that there is, I hope, agreement that this will be done in due course at an early stage.

The noble Baroness, Lady May, also mentioned the way in which employers treat and look at individuals who are subject to domestic violence, who may be hidden, who may come into work and may have challenges and have their performance in their work impacted by the situation at home. It is an extremely important point. Let me say to her that it is not just in the private sector that there are employers: the biggest employer in this country is the UK Government. I hope I can again reassure her that the Government are working closely with organisations such as the Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse, and that the Government will be, or are soon to be, signing up as members of that alliance. Again, that is a really strong point for the Government as a whole.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

A key employer in this is, of course, the police. I am sure the Minister is aware of this. I have never done a day’s training with police officers where at least two or three have not come forward afterwards to disclose that they are victims of domestic abuse and that their partner works in the force. The quickest way to improve our response on the doorstep would be to make sure that the police treat victims of abuse within the force in the same way that we expect them to behave on the doorstep.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for that intervention. I give the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, the assurance that I will take that back and draw it to the attention of Diana Johnson, the Police Minister, directly, so that she is aware of the issue. The general point here is that Government, as well as regulating, can lead.

I think that the points the noble Baroness, Lady May, made are sound and good. Those are not things I have always said of her, but I mean it in the nicest possible way—we have had several discussions over many years on Home Office responsibilities. I agree with her on this, and I hope that we can work together on those points.

There was also a range of discussion about modern technology. I think it has a role to play. We want to work with the police to ensure that we improve that information, which also relates to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, just made. We need data-driven tools and algorithms to track and target high-harm offenders. That again goes to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, mentioned earlier. We also need to look at the issue raised by a number of Members of the House on prevention and education. The noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, herself, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and a number of other Members mentioned how we improve standards and teach children, male and female—I suggest, in this context, particularly male children—to be respectful, have healthy relationships and understand the meaning of consent, and ensure that they grow up to be adults who, wherever we can, we put prior activity in for to prevent poor behaviour downstream in due course

Throughout all this, the needs of victims are central. My noble friend Lady Hazarika was very focused on victims; the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, as the Victims’ Commissioner, self-evidently has a focus on victims; the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, also put at the heart of things how the support of the voluntary sector can help victims as a whole. We know that access to housing, particularly when people cannot return to housing, is important. That is a real priority for government, and I am pleased that this Government have announced a funding increase of £30 million to a total investment of £160 million in the domestic abuse safe accommodation grant of 2025-26 to ensure that local councils can provide front-line accommodation services to help support victims in their workplace.

Housing is important, but victims also need holistic, wraparound services. That involves the National Health Service and schools understanding domestic abuse and victims getting appropriate support. We need to focus on the importance of specialist services, with tailored support for victims and survivors in due course. That all takes resource. The noble Baronesses, Lady Gohir and Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, all looked at the question of resources. There is a spending reviewing process, and there will be a spending review for the three years post 2026-27. The Government have to make choices, and these are representations that will be made. A police settlement will be announced next week, which covers a number of the areas funded. We will have to reflect on that. I know again, from representations from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench and others, that resources will be key. That will have to play out in its own way over the next few weeks as we go through the spending review, the police settlement and others.

I turn to the contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg. She made three very important points. First, I think that the definition of domestic abuse needs to recognise coercive behaviour and the question of reproductive coercive behaviour. I hope I can reassure her that the current definition is designed to do that. We can discuss whether it does in practice, but that is what it is designed to do. Secondly, she mentioned very clearly the question of honour-based violence. I, and my honourable friends the Ministers Jess Phillips and Alex Davies-Jones, have heard loud and clear that there needs to be a robust framework on safeguards for victims. The Government are considering this again. Sometimes I have to stand at this Dispatch Box with a hint but nothing definitive, and I hope that the noble Baroness can understand where we are with that at the moment. She also mentioned domestic homicide. There is a real issue there. The Government are committed to looking at domestic homicide review processes to see whether we can improve them.

The Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle and the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, raised the definition of domestic abuse relating to age. Following the terrible case of Holly Newton, which was mentioned by other Members, our thoughts have to be with the family but, ultimately, we have to do something about that. Therefore, it is important that we look at how we record violent incidents and how the victims are supported, whether they are under 16 or over 16. The police must have information to protect victims and take action against the perpetrators. This is something that we can reflect on, and I would welcome contributions from Members on how we can best do that.

My noble friend Lady Gale and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, mentioned Article 59 of the Istanbul convention. This is an issue on which my noble friend Lady Gale has pressed me previously, and I know she will again. The system of settlements under domestic abuse provisions is currently only for those who have an expectation of being able to settle here when they enter the UK. But our policy review is now looking at the very issues that she has raised. I hate to ask for patience on these matters because I know how important this is and how impatient my noble friend is, but if she can have some patience, we will review this as part of the policy review and look at those issues in due course. The UK ratified the Istanbul convention in 2022 and the convention’s monitors visited the UK in January this year. We look forward to receiving their report and then, I hope, the UK’s compliance with the review in due course.

Colleagues also mentioned the tragic murder of Sara Sharif. I am limited in what I can say, for the simple reason that a conviction has happened but the sentencing has not yet happened. Therefore, I hope noble Lords will understand that while we know who is guilty, we do not yet know what the penalty is and any statement from this Dispatch Box would be interpreted as interfering in that judicial process. I am in a difficult position. My noble friend Lady Hazarika and the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady Brinton, raised that issue. Post sentencing, the Government will reflect again on whether there are areas of required action. We need answers. An independent panel will look at those issues in due course. I hope that we can settle that for today, difficult though it is, and in due course reflect on the issues that are ahead of us.

I hope I have covered most of the points that colleagues have raised. To conclude, this Government have a clear agenda to build—

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, I made three very important points on spiritual abuse, transnational abandonment and the higher domestic homicide rates among ethnic-minority women, which have not been addressed.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I appreciate the noble Baroness raising those issues again. Can I write to her on those important points? I noted in the steam of the debate all the points that were mentioned. I am trying to respond to as many as I can. I took from her contribution the need for funding, which I have noted. I will reflect on what she said and her subsequent intervention, and will respond in due course. The transnational issue, of individuals being abandoned in a different country, is extremely important. I do not have a policy solution in front of me, but I will take it back to discuss with my colleague, Jess Phillips. I hope that will assist the noble Baroness.

In conclusion, the Government have a very strong agenda which I hope will build on the all-party work and the work done by the previous Government. There is a need to set a target, which we have done, of halving the incidence of violence against women and girls over a 10-year period. We have a first five-year stab at that in the course of this Parliament. To do that, we have tried to look at how we can improve measures in control rooms, improve measures on perpetrators, improve support for victims, improve the understanding and speed of court cases, and look at how we can settle on resource to ensure that some implications of previous legislation can be implemented. We will be judged on that.

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today. A lot of good points have been made. As well as reflecting on the bits that I have responsibility for, I will make sure that the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary, the Lord Chancellor, reflect on the bits that they have responsibility for. On behalf of the Government, I thank the Members who have spoken. In slower time, taking the point that the noble Baroness has just made, I will look through Hansard over the next 24 hours. If there are points that I need to respond to further, I will do so.

Guns Manufactured by 3D Printers

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of guns manufactured by 3D printers circulating in the United Kingdom.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am pleased to tell my noble friend that no viable fully 3D-printed firearms have been found by law enforcement in the United Kingdom. In 2023, there were 25 instances where police seized 3D-printed component parts or other items associated with 3D printing of firearms.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. He will have seen the reports this morning that the person who supposedly shot the insurance executive in New York was carrying a 3D-printed weapon. He will be aware that the firearm of choice for young men in Australia and New Zealand is now a 3D-printed weapon. He will be aware that it is possible, by searching for FGC-9 on the internet—I apologise for offending the sensibilities of anyone in the House, but FGC stands for “Fuck Gun Control”—to get detailed manuals of how to make a 3D-printed firearm. What is being done to stop the circulation of such manuals? Is it an offence to download such a manual, as it would be in other circumstances?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I can tell my noble friend that it is an offence to manufacture and distribute a prohibited weapon, such as a handgun or semi-automatic rifle, however it is manufactured. That carries a sentence of life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for possessing such a prohibited weapon, including any 3D-printed prohibited weapon, is 10 years’ imprisonment with a minimum penalty of five years. We will keep legislation under review and there will be opportunities during the course of this Session to review that legislation in relation to any issues that might need to be brought forward.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, raises a serious point. Although, as the Minister said, there have not been too many instances, there have been quite a few where guns have been produced. One big thing that has changed over the past few years is that, apart from producing plastic-based guns, people are now able to produce metallic guns, which means they have more than one use. Of course, we do our best to control that production. We have very strict gun controls in this country. You cannot own a prohibited weapon—a handgun or an automatic weapon—so we are left with rifles and shotguns. If we lose this control point, which 3D printers allow, we will be in a serious situation. Would it be wise to consider banning the software, and the importing of the software, for these 3D printers? Finally, should there be some follow-up investigations on the list of people who have had these 3D printers delivered to find out what they are using them for and whether any of these guns have been produced on those particular printers?

[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.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, noble Lords have heard the strong view of the House, from the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Hogan-Howe, among others, that there is a gap in the criminal canon for the downloading of software to make 3D-printed firearms. Clearly, it would be appropriate for the Home Office immediately to launch a consultation on making it an offence to download the software to create 3D-printed firearms. Will the Minister commit to initiating such a consultation immediately?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will take that as a representation to the Government about their proposals for next year. The Government are exploring all legislative options to criminalise the possession and supply of 3D-printed firearms templates. We are looking at that now; I hope the noble Lord will have patience in this matter.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, as well as 3D-printed firearms, there has been a significant increase in 3D-printed components used to convert blank firing guns into operable firearms—so much so that the head of the NCA has called for legislation to deal with this issue. Is my noble friend in a position to commit to ensuring that any legislation deals with the illicit manufacture of the components that can turn innocuous blank-firing pistols—which are available for purchase without any licence—into lethal weapons, and not just 3D-printed firearms?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The question of hybrid weapons, again, is covered by existing legislation, in the sense that it is an offence carrying a penalty of life imprisonment to distribute them, and an offence carrying a penalty of between five and 10 years’ imprisonment to hold and own them. If the hybrid nature of firearms is being developed, that again is an issue that we are currently looking at, currently examining. There is a Private Member’s Bill in the House of Commons for consideration in January. The Government will respond to that Private Member’s Bill and will reflect on the points made in both this House and the House of Commons.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I had the pleasure of doing a Private Member’s Bill with the late Sir David Amess, which dealt with the supply of machinery that could manufacture, for instance, counterfeit passports. Building on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, when we look at this matter, could we make sure that we look also at any 3D printing of bullets—which is apparently at the cusp of being possible —as well as handguns?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Absolutely. Again, I am in danger of repeating myself to the House. Those matters are under consideration. The Government will review all legislation. Again, the Government’s main aim is to strengthen what we already have: a penalty of life imprisonment for the illegal manufacture and distribution of weapons, and a penalty of five to 10 years for the holding of an illegal weapon. We are keeping these matters under review. I hope the House can hear what I say and understand the consideration that we are making.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, as a design and technology teacher with four 3D printers in his department, I am fully aware of the advantages and limitations of 3D printing. Does the Minister agree with me that, rather than concentrating on a tiny number of potential weapons, it would be better to look at hunting knives on the streets as a far more dangerous thing?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

In proposed legislation in the King’s Speech, the Government are looking at how we can tackle the whole issue of knife crime. Again, there is a range of options for potential action by government there, which will be outlined by the Government in the coming months. I will take what the noble Lord has said as another representation on that, but I hope the House will understand that knife crime is central to the Government’s plans for the reduction of crime and of young, innocent deaths.

It is also important that we reflect on matters that have been raised about the potential manifestation of different types of firearm. I have said that it is illegal currently, that we will reflect on legislation in the House of Commons and that there will be opportunities in legislation later this year, in this Session, to examine those matters accordingly. I hope that noble Lords can hear what I have said.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will remember that, when we were in the Home Office, I put huge pressure on identifying and stopping the production of bullets, and bullets became the real focus—because without the bullets, of course, the guns are pretty useless. Could I add my concern that, if they start printing bullets, it will become rather different and we will need to look at this in a very different way, because that would be extremely serious?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

How could I forget my years in the Home Office with my noble friend? We spent 2009-10 in the Home Office sharing opposite offices; it was a fascinating and enjoyable experience. My noble friend makes some very valid points. Again, I am in danger of repeating myself. The issues that the House is bringing to my attention about the potential manufacture of bullets, guns and hybrid guns are currently, potentially, covered by existing legislation. If they are not, we will review that in the light of Private Members’ Bills, discussions and representations. There are opportunities to continue that discussion further.

Police Officers: Recruitment

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

To ask His Majesty’s Government (1) what steps they are taking to recruit 13,000 additional police officers, and (2) what assessment they have made of the impact of a proposed reduction of Metropolitan Police officer numbers on this commitment.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

As part of our safer streets mission, the Government will restore neighbourhood policing by putting police back on the beat, with 13,000 additional police officers, police community support officers and special constables in neighbourhood policing roles across England and Wales, including in London. Last week, the Prime Minister announced a £100 million fund which will be made available in 2025-26 to support the initial delivery of the 13,000 additional neighbourhood police and details of delivery for the coming year will be confirmed at the provisional police funding settlement later this month.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, the media report that the Metropolitan Police is going to cut 2,300 officers and 400 staff next year because of a £450 million funding shortfall. This clearly will be devastating for the service. Does the Minister agree that the Government will therefore struggle to hit their target of 13,000 new police officers? Does this news put the Government’s mission-led strategy at risk?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government’s target of 13,000 police, police and community support officers and special constables will be met to ensure an increase in neighbourhood policing by the end of this Parliament. We have put the funding of £100 million in place next year to ensure that resource is in place to meet that initial mission which we will complete and be judged on by the end of this Parliament. The police settlement has not yet been determined. It will be announced next week, before Christmas. It will be consulted on between Christmas and January and it will be a matter for approval by Parliament by February. As yet, much of the discussion is speculation. I simply say to the noble Lord that his record still needs scrutiny and he needs to remember that his Government reduced police officer numbers by 20,000, reduced the number of PCSOs from over 16,000 to 8,000 and reduced the number of special constables from 20,000 to 8,500 in the course of their term of office. We will meet our targets. We will meet our mission statement and he will judge us on that.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the previous Government slashed neighbourhood policing and saw a massive increase in anti-social crime, knife crime and street crime. Does the Minister think the Opposition need to reflect on their past record before they come up with suggestions of how we fix the problems they created?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Opposition’s record is one of the reasons they are the Opposition now. The reason they lost the election is because confidence in policing dropped; confidence in the results and outcomes of policing dropped; shoplifting went up 29% in the last year, when the noble Lord was in office. There was also a 40% rise in shop theft over that period in office, and a reduction in the number of police officers. What we are trying to do—this is a difficult task, which I hope the House will bear with us on—is to increase the number of neighbourhood police, put in place respect orders, improve the quality of policing through confidence measures, invest in our policing and ensure that we secure the things the previous Government did not.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness from the Liberal Democrat Benches for raising that. One of the key aspects of the Government’s police reform programme is the question of police reform. It is about improving standards. It is about giving extra responsibility to the College of Policing and working with chief constables to look at how we raise standards in policing. However, it is also about making sure we have those 13,000 neighbourhood police. They can pick up on a range of intelligence, help raise confidence in policing and, as the noble Baroness has mentioned, liaise better with hospitals, social services and probation on how to deal with areas and hotspots of crime that are currently avoided because neighbourhood policing is not as efficient as it should be on the ground. We intend to review all of that. If the noble Baroness and the House will bear with us, plans will be brought forward to strengthen that in legislation over the next 12 months.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, people might expect me to automatically assume that the Met is right in this argument; I do not. Having taken over in 2011, when we lost around £600 million, and when 20,000 police were reduced nationally, we had to maintain our 32,000 by making sensible savings. I am always a bit sceptical, as many of us are, when public services make that argument. But will the Government consider two things when making their announcement next week? First, a disproportionate amount of the Met’s budget is spent on national duties, for example, counter- terrorism, protection of the Government, diplomatic and royal protection, and other things on behalf of the country. Secondly, the amount of population growth we have seen in this country has disproportionately affected London. The population is now well over 9 million and around 2 million people visit this city each day. Where they need policing, of course, the Met has to provide it. Those two arguments need to be considered carefully when the Government are making their decisions on where to allocate resources.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord has far more experience than even I could bring to this issue. His words carry a very strong resonance. I am pleased that he reminded the Opposition of the challenges they put into policing in 2011-12, with funding reductions and real challenge in that system. He is right that the population of London faces not just its own challenges but the challenges of tourism and major events, and it has national responsibilities. Those are matters that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is reflecting on as part of the £100 million settlement for next year, and the £500 million she has announced for wider policing issues next year. She is cognisant of that fact. I hope the noble Lord will understand that I cannot go further, because I would be pre-empting statements that will be made before Christmas on the settlement not just for London but the whole of the England and Wales policing family.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I congratulate His Majesty’s Government on the laudable aim of increasing the number of police and others in front-line services. As I travel around Beds and Herts, I hear that there are plans for cuts in policing. This is at a time when in rural areas there is a fear of rural crime, which I do not think will be addressed by what will predominantly be allocation in urban areas. It is very real; there is a lot of fear and huge costs, particularly to our farming community. What can His Majesty’s Government do to build on the success of initiatives such as Operation Ragwort, which worked across counties? It made a significant improvement without huge additional cost.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

One of the important issues that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced last week was on the College of Policing and others looking at good practice and how we can drive efficiency and crime reduction at the same time. One of the areas where that is being looked at is how we can roll out co-operation between different forces, efficiencies in procurement and making sure that we learn the lessons of good practice, such as the scheme that the right reverend Prelate mentioned. Those are on the agenda. Rural policing is equally important, but again—I hope the House will bear with me—I am not at liberty to talk about the settlement, as that will be announced next week. It is right and proper that it is done in that format.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register and apologise for not doing so the last time I spoke. The current Metropolitan Police Commissioner says that the force has survived over the last decade or so only by selling property and running down reserves, of which there are next to nothing left. What is the Government's response to what he has said?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, there is a range of resources that the Government are trying to put into policing, which we will be announcing next week. There is a range of initiatives the Government are bringing forward, and I hope the noble Lord will bear with me and reflect on what is said in due course.

I want to give time for the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, to get in his question.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, would the Minister be good enough to tell the House what is the exact cost to the police forces in England and Wales of the increase in national insurance contributions? How much are the Government going to contribute in cash terms to meeting those additional costs?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

One hundred per cent, my Lords.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Home Office is looking at police support staff as neighbourhood police, because they do not get moved every two years?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is important that we have stability. Very often, when I was a Member of Parliament, the police chief in the local area would be in post for two years and he or she would either retire or would be promoted and go up the ladder. We need to have some stability. Part of the purpose of neighbourhood policing is to try to get stability and local intelligence, including from police support staff on the ground.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I was on the police authority when Boris Johnson took an axe to police numbers. I remember it very clearly and it damaged the Met because it took out a swathe of officers, and then other officers had to go and do backroom jobs. I remember it clearly, so I think it is a bit hypocritical of this side of the Chamber to start complaining to the Government. My question is: will all those new officers have really good training in dealing with domestic assault against, mainly, women, and in understanding that it can lead to much worse crimes?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have a strong commitment to halve the level of violence against women and girls over a 10-year period. We had a Statement last week on some aspects of that in this House, and we will be looking at developing further policies to reduce the level of violence against women and girls. Key to that is police understanding of the sensitivities and potential escalation of that violence, and probation and monitoring the effect on individuals who commit—in inverted commas—low-level crime initially, which can then escalate into sometimes tragic events. The point that the noble Baroness makes is extremely valid, but it is on the Government’s agenda, and I hope she continues to press me on that as time goes on.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that, back in the first Blair Administration, we inherited a recruitment crisis in the police service. Back then, Jack Straw very sensibly ring-fenced additional funding for our police service. Is it the Government’s intention to do that this time round? Perhaps we could take heart from the efforts made by those areas where there are Labour police commissioners and their efforts to maintain recruitment. Can we ensure that those who are not Labour commissioners carry out the Government’s will in recruiting extra police?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend makes some important points. The police landscape has changed dramatically since 1997, in that we now have police and crime commissioners, who have a responsibility for setting the precept and setting budget priorities in their areas. That is a matter for them, but the Government are clear that, on top of that—over and above what the police and crime commissioners have scope for—we will look at how we can encourage the greater use of those 13,000 officers. Again, those matters will be reflected on as part of the police and crime settlement that will be announced in due course, because the Government are committed to 13,000 officers and they will be judged on that. Therefore, they need to have some levers to make sure that those 13,000 officers are in place.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, given that we have seen a steady rise in crime over the last eight years under a Labour mayor, we are the only part of the country—the Met, that is—that did not hit its recruitment target. What support will the noble Lord give the Mayor of London to make sure he hits that target when he issues him with extra police officers that he will have to find? He did not find any last time, so where are they hiding this time?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If I recall, the Mayor of London found the confidence of the people of London—not everybody did in that election. The Mayor of London had the confidence of the people of London, and he had the resources from previous Governments. It ill behoves the noble Lord to talk about underfunding in London over the past eight years when he stood as the candidate in that election and when his party was responsible for that underfunding. Let us look at where we are now: from 4 July, this Government are committed to increasing police numbers and increasing neighbourhood police officers by 13,000, and they have put £100 million into resources and £500 million into overall policing. Next week, we will make a police statement announcement for London and elsewhere. Let us be judged on that.

Migration and Border Security

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, first, I declare my interests, as I am supported by the RAMP organisation.

I start by reflecting on the issues of the past few days, particularly those around the Saydnaya military prison in Syria, where we can see tables with 20 nooses on top of them and a crematorium where people’s bodies are disposed of. That was what people were fleeing from in their numbers when they came from Syria, yet the previous Government refused even to listen. They put a cloth over their ears and said that they would not hear people’s case for leaving.

There is an issue for those Syrians who are in this country, seeking refuge. I know that the Minister will tell me that the Government have paused the scheme whereby their cases will be assessed, and I understand why that is the case. However, the longer that they have to wait in limbo, the worse is going to be the sense of personal deprivation and loss of dignity that comes with the system that they find themselves in. I would be grateful if the Minister could start by telling us how quickly the Government intend to deal with this matter in order that they can process those people who are waiting in the queue for their case to be heard.

The previous Government left an immigration system which was not working for business, universities, families or migrants themselves. In the legal migration methodology that the last Government used, they did not want to deal with it, and they left huge gaps in what was happening within our social care and university sectors. Despite the expansion in the numbers of people arriving on the health and social care visa, we still see huge challenges, with labour shortages in social care, alongside deeply worrying levels of exploitation of migrants on this visa. As the number of people entering the UK on a health and care worker visa has reduced, what steps are the Government taking to address the labour shortages in the care sector and the reported exploitation of those on that visa where the employer has had a licence removed?

In the previous Government’s efforts to reduce net migration, little consideration was given to the impact of these changes and whether the correct balance was being met. One area of concern is the increase in the salary threshold for British citizens to bring their spouse or partner to the UK. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of this policy on British citizens, including children, who are unable to live as a family unit in the UK?

We welcome the international co-operation being sought to tackle the criminal gangs involved in channel crossings. However, we urge the Government to address the demand side as well as the supply side. Safe routes have to be part of the solution for those fleeing persecution and using dangerous routes to reach the UK. Will the Government consider a pilot of the humanitarian travel visa system for tiering the high grant-rate countries, and hear how they have to make their cases, just as the people of Syria are still waiting to hear their cases in this country?

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lords. I do not know where the noble Lord, Lord Murray, has been for the past 14 years, but I do not think he has been in the same place that I have been. His solution to the question of small boats and migration, illegal or otherwise, was to establish a £700 million fantasy Rwanda scheme, which removed resources from legitimate areas of tackling illegal migration and focused on trying to stop people crossing the channel in small boats. When that deterrent passed this House, 84,000 people still crossed the channel with it in place. It was not a deterrent: it did not work, and it wasted money on a scheme that stopped us from focusing on the things that this Government are focusing on.

We have ramped up the number of returns of people who are not allowed here legally; we have removed 9,400 people since 5 July, including 1,500 foreign national offenders; and we have put additional resources into the Border Force scheme and created a Border Security Command. Only this day, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has met her German and French counterparts to put in place new action on tackling criminal gangs downstream. As we speak now, there is a meeting between Home Secretaries from across Europe to ensure that we tackle this collectively across this area. Talking to European colleagues was something that the noble Lord and his party did not really take to.

We have put £150 million into a Border Security Command and have led a new international effort. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been to Iraq to secure an agreement with the Iraqi Government on criminal gangs for both sides of that fence. We have funded an extra 100 specialist NCA officers, increased the number of asylum claims dealt with, and increased the speed of those asylum claims. I remind the House that in 2019 there were no hotels in use for asylum seekers. Because of the failure of the noble Lord’s Government’s policy, there were over 200 hotels used over that five-year period, and we are committed to ending that practice. In short, I will not take lessons from him on migration. He has a record to defend; he cannot defend it. He needs to look at what this Government will do to unpick the mess that his Government left of this asylum system.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord German, that the Syria situation is extremely serious. We need to monitor it on the ground. We are very much aware of the atrocities of the Assad regime, and of the further atrocities being unearthed as we speak. We need a political resolution and to look at having stability restored. To be open and honest with the noble Lord, I say that we need time to reflect on how we deal with the asylum issue and claims made—or counter-made—from individuals who were in Syria or who are now in this country accordingly. We need to do that because there are potentially still individuals who might use this circumstance to travel in a way that will damage the interests of the United Kingdom. I hope that he will reflect on the fact that we will certainly need to look at that in time.

The other questions that the noble Lord asked are equally valid. He put a number of suggestions forward, which I will consider, as representations on the position as a whole. We have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to look at the question of skills and the need for future skills, and to report back to the Home Office and the Prime Minister in due course. We have also looked at establishing further work on a White Paper on net migration and other aspects of migration, outlining the needs and where the challenges arise. Both will take time, and although the noble Lord is entitled to scrutinise, to press and to suggest, I hope that he will bear with us. When the new year comes, he can contribute, in a very positive way, to the two challenges of commissioning the Migration Advisory Committee and establishing the route for a White Paper, which will lead to wider discussion.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, a report in Sunday’s Observer indicated that the quality of decision-making on asylum claims suffered significantly in the interests of speed under the previous Government, leading to an increase in appeals, nearly half of which were successful. What steps are being taken now to improve the quality of decision-making?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an extremely important point on which the Government are not only reflecting but taking action. The slowness of asylum appeals, the poor quality of some decision-making and the level of appeals taking place all added to the pressures on the asylum system and therefore on accommodation, hotels and the other aspects of providing for people who had an asylum claim that was not yet finalised. We are focused on that area. We are trying to speed up asylum claims, and to ensure that we reach earlier decisions and that the quality of decision-making is improved. They are hard challenges, as she will understand, but they are certainly on the Government’s agenda.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that instability in Syria is likely to give rise to a surge in migration? He will be aware that, when the Soviet Union collapsed, we put in place a Know-How Fund to assist the transition to better governance and a better economy. Does he agree that, with the risk of increased migration from Syria, we should consider, in concert with the European Union and perhaps other willing states from the Middle East, something approaching a Know-How Fund to improve governance and the economy of Syria?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Viscount makes an extremely important point. The Government have put in place an £11 million fund to support humanitarian aid. The Foreign Secretary has met his Turkish and Emirati counterparts and the UN special envoy, and he will look at those issues in due course. With due respect to the noble Viscount and others, if we were talking this time last week we would not have expected to be where we are now. Things are moving very speedily, but the Government are cognisant of the fact that they need to help secure the stability of a new regime and, at the same time, examine the consequences of that regime change in a way that encourages peace in the region.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I will pursue the point about casework. Does the Minister agree that there is a balance between speed, accuracy and the application of all the humanitarian factors that one needs to keep in mind? Thinking about what it must be like to deal with the applications, I have only admiration for those who work on them. I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer this, but I wonder whether the Home Office is providing enough support for supervision, as well as general support for those faced with the applications.

I also want to mention asylum hotels, which the Minister mentioned. I hear an increasing call for support for people living in asylum hotels—more than just accommodation. Perhaps the Home Office can bear this in mind in its contracting of accommodation, because asylum seekers need more than just a roof over their head.

Finally, I will no doubt be showing my ignorance, but perhaps I could ask a question on the Statement. We are told that illegal working visits are up 34%. What are illegal working visits?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

First, on that point, legislation was passed in 2014 by the then Conservative Government, which the then Labour Opposition supported. I was the shadow Minister. It was to ensure that we crack down on illegal working in a range of establishments, for two reasons. First, individuals who are here illegally should not be exploited by unscrupulous employers. Secondly, in employing people illegally, those unscrupulous employers are undercutting the ability to pay decent wages and give decent conditions of service to people who work legally, while undercutting the costs of other businesses. Therefore, it is not appropriate. The Government are trying to up that, building on the legislation that was passed. I hope that I have noble Lords’ support in this. We are also looking at building on that legislation to ensure that we can take further steps accordingly.

The noble Baroness also mentions two aspects. One is asylum hotels. This is difficult, but it is the Government’s intention to end the use of asylum hotels at an early opportunity. We will be progressing that. At the moment, give or take one or two hotels, we are at the same number that the Government had in July, but we are aiming to reduce that significantly, because it is a cost to the taxpayer and, as the noble Baroness says, it is not conducive to the good health and well-being of those people who are in our care for that period of time. Again, that is a long-term objective. On her first point, we are trying to speed up the asylum system in an accurate way to ensure that asylum claims are assessed quickly. Then, where they are approved, individuals can have asylum, and, where they are not approved and people have no right of abode, they can be removed. At the moment, that system has no energy in it, to the extent that we want it to have. We are trying to put some energy into that system.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The Minister mentioned the work of the Migration Advisory Committee, looking at skills. It rather sounded as though we would be allowing additional people into the UK on its recommendations, whereas I believe the focus should be on upskilling UK young people and UK unemployed so that they can fill the skills gaps that we have. The shadow Minister made a point about the winding down of the scheme to encourage integration in the UK and to encourage people to learn proper English, as you see in other countries. Could the Minister kindly answer the question that was asked?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

On the first point, I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness that the purpose of the Government discussing this aspect with the Migration Advisory Committee is to look at the question of skills shortages and where individuals potentially can add to the gross domestic product and contribute to society as a whole. There may well be some skills shortages, but we are reviewing that in relation to the potential for a range of matters. This will be allied with the White Paper, which looks at the level of net migration and how the net migration target that was set previously is managed by the new Government.

The noble Baroness’s point about integration is extremely important. Let me take away the points that she and the noble Lord made and give them both a fuller answer as to the outcome of that discussion.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord German raised the question of Syrian refugees, and the Minister was right to point out the situation that prevails at the moment in that country. There is ample evidence, photographic and otherwise, of large numbers of refugees from neighbouring countries making their way back into Syria to go back to their homeland. What are the Government doing to give help and assistance to refugees who want to return to Syria? What assistance is being given to those who may wish to withdraw their application for asylum?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I hope I can help the noble Lord, but this is a very fast-moving situation; we were not here this time last week. There are challenges in Syria, with people moving back there from neighbouring countries and the United Kingdom, and people, potentially, still seeking asylum from a new Syrian regime that they do not support. These issues are all on the table. I hope the noble Lord will understand, but I do not wish to commit now to definitive policy solutions to those issues, because the Government are reflecting on them. So I will simply say that the £11 million of humanitarian aid that the Foreign Secretary announced this week is a start. If the noble Lord and the House will allow us, those are matters that we can maybe discuss in slower time, when the Government have assessed the position fully and determined what best we can do with our partners to assist that position.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, much has been made of the Syrian situation by many noble Lords this afternoon. Does this not open up a question as to what the asylum rules are really there for? We do not know quite where Syria will end up—it is early days, as the Minister very correctly said—but many Syrians will be looking to go back home. During the years of civil war in Syria, Lebanon warmly accepted many Syrians, but it was quite bizarre that, during the height of Lebanon’s recent problems, many Syrians went home from Lebanon saying that Syria was safer than Lebanon at the time.

Are we not in a situation, if Syria does settle down, where we can consider whether temporary asylum is probably a better way forward for the world? Ultimately, is it not the case that the brightest, best, fittest and strongest people, having left their country at a time of conflict, would actually wish and want to return home to rebuild that country for the future? Is that something the Government would support: a temporary asylum basis rather than a permanent one?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. Individuals can always choose to return if the situation in their home country that they were fleeing and seeking asylum from changes. In this circumstance, we have temporarily paused decisions on Syrian asylum claims while we assess the current situation and we are keeping country guidance under review. With due respect to all noble Lords, we do not yet know how this will pan out; we do not know who the good guys and the bad guys are going to be; and we do not know ultimately what will happen in the new Syria that might emerge from the collapse of the Assad regime.

The same is true for Ukrainian citizens and others who flee and seek temporary asylum or relief from a particular war situation or from poverty and hunger. We judge those on an individual basis: asylum is given, or it is not; people are returned, or they are not. I would like to keep to that system, but recognise that circumstances change, as has been shown in the last week in Syria.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I might revert to Syria. The question of war crime trials will arise. Does the Minister agree that the Government should give earnest consideration to going to the Security Council to try to get a resolution remitting war crimes to the International Criminal Court? Or, if that is not possible, for obvious reasons, should the Government consider invoking the Rome statute to achieve that purpose?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If the noble Viscount will allow me, those matters are slightly beyond my remit. I would not wish to commit the Government to any particular course of action on that, but I will certainly pass his comments to the Foreign Secretary who, along with the Prime Minister, will be considering these matters. It is not within my direct gift; I could comment on it and give him a view, but it may not subsequently prove to be the Government’s one—so I wish to retain the right to silence, if the noble Viscount understands what I mean.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

The noble Lord, in response to an earlier question, referenced the ambition to close asylum hotels. There has been much discussion recently about the impact of net migration on housing stock, et cetera. Has he evaluated the impact of that policy on the availability of social and affordable housing, and how does he expect to be able to house the net migration figures?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has already committed in the House of Commons, in a Statement repeated in this House, to increase dramatically the number of social houses, affordable houses and housebuilding sites generally across the United Kingdom, as a matter of some urgency, to meet the housing need.

The question of hotel accommodation, and of what happens to individuals post that, is a significant issue. With the Migration Advisory Committee and the future White Paper, we are trying to look at how we deal with those issues. The immediate government objective is to reduce and ultimately close the number of hotels being used, because they are an expensive way of providing that level of housing for individuals. There were no hotels in 2019; there are now more than 200 in use. It is not good, for a range of reasons, to continue that mechanism of policy, so we are trying to exit it. That takes time, and the evaluation of the consequences of that withdrawal also takes time, but I hope that the noble Earl, along with this House, will bear with us while we wrestle and grapple with those issues.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister shares the world’s horror at the recent announcement from the Taliban of the latest repressive measure against women in Afghanistan, which has banned women from medical training, including banning the training of female midwives. This serves as a reminder of the vulnerability of the entire Afghan population, but particularly those many Afghans who served both the UK military and UK-linked institutions who remain in the region in extremely endangered circumstances. I note that the International Rescue Committee applauded the small initial step that the Government took on family reunion for families separated during Operation Pitting, but what more are the Government doing to assist those Afghans, to whom we have a real responsibility, to find a safe, orderly route to seek asylum in the UK?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is extremely important that we have a responsibility to those individuals who served and supported what I would call coalition forces in Afghanistan. It is particularly important that we uphold the rights of women to lead their lives in their own way in Afghanistan and to have opportunities to do so. The points that the noble Baroness has made are worthy of reflection. If she will let me, I will report her comments today back to my colleague Minister, who is directly responsible in the Home Office for those matters, and respond to her in due course.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, in response to questions from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, the Minister gave the impression that not much progress had been made in negotiations and actual action on the ground in dealing with the small boats. I was wondering whether he could acknowledge that a huge amount of work was done in negotiating with France. Can he spell out what action he is taking that is different from what we were doing? Secondly, the individual now heading up the small boats border force said when he was appointed that part of the strategy should be deterrence. Where is that deterrent?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I think there is a different type of deterrent from that which the noble Viscount would wish to exercise, and which I am guessing he supported when the noble Lord, Lord Murray, brought the proposals forward. The Rwandan scheme, in my view, was not a deterrent: it was a costly, £700 million fantasy that would have secured even more resource in due course. We have scrapped that scheme, saved that £700 million, reallocated that resource to Border Force with £150 million as an initial starter, and appointed Martin Hewitt to co-ordinate not just Home Office activity but policing and international efforts. The results of that are the type of thing happening this very day here in London, with agreements being signed by the French, the Belgians, the Dutch and the Germans to secure co-operation on criminal gangs. I hope the noble Viscount will note that the numbers of prosecutions and returns, and the speed of asylum applications, are starting to pick up. That is because the resource we saved from being wasted—it was a legitimate choice for the Government to make, but one I did not support—is now being put to good use.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I go back to the questions asked by my noble friend on the Front Bench and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe about the integration and English fund, which was put in place by the former Government and which the current Government have scrapped. I do not expect the Minister to answer this now because he has already said he will write, but was some assessment made on the likely impact that the scrapping of that fund would have on community cohesion? Will he commit to write to the House on this?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Of course. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his contribution. He held the office that I hold now, and he knows how difficult it is and how slow things can be. I will try to answer him as fairly as I possibly can. A good grasp of English and a good level of integration are critical, even when asylum claims are granted, because they make individuals less open to exploitation and abuse. They help with an individual’s general integration into society post any formal asylum application being approved. I will put the correspondence the noble Lord has requested in the Library of the House, and I look forward to him reading it in due course—perhaps even between Christmas and the new year.

Police Act 1997 (Authorisations to Interfere with Property: Relevant Offence) Regulations 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 29 October be approved.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

In moving this Motion, I also ask that the House approves the National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2025.

Both these instruments, which were laid before this House on 29 October 2024, relate to the National Security Act. This Act, which received Royal Assent in July last year under the previous Government, includes a number of measures to protect the public, modernise our counterespionage laws and disrupt the full range of modern-day state threats. Among those measures is a prohibited places regime, including a suite of tools and offences to protect and capture harmful activity in and around some of the UK’s most sensitive sites, including by modern threats such as unmanned aircraft, which noble Lords will recognise colloquially as drones. It is essential that we make these two amendments, to ensure consistency of approach to the consequential amendments in both English and Welsh versions of related legislation and to ensure that our law enforcement bodies have the right tools to do their critical work.

It might help noble Lords if I outline the first instrument, the Police Act 1997 (Authorisations to Interfere with Property: Relevant Offence) Regulations 2025. This adds drone-specific offences under the National Security Act 2023 to the list of relevant offences in the Police Act 1997, which provides police and other authorised officials with the legal authority to employ counter-drone equipment to detect and prevent the use of drones in the commission of relevant offences. The amendment is essential to enforce the National Security Act, as it ensures that police and other authorised officials can authorise the appropriate technical tools to tackle and combat drone misuse. If we do not proceed with the legislation, there may be instances where an offence under the National Security Act 2023 is committed but the police are unable to authorise the use of their equipment.

The second instrument, the National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2025, amends the Welsh language version of the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2019. Last year, when changing the English language version of the Act through the National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendments of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2023, an oversight took place, as happens occasionally, and the corresponding change was not made to the Welsh language version. It will be with this order today. The instrument will correct this oversight, ensuring that there is no misunderstanding when consulting the Welsh language version of the Act regarding the ability to disclose information obtained in the course of an investigation by the Public Services Ombudsman, if required in relation to a prosecution for offences under the National Security Act 2023.

I hope that that is relatively clear. These are two simple amendments, and I hope that I have made it clear from these remarks that the regulations will ensure the correct application and enforcement of primary legislation, supported by the previous Government, which has already been agreed by Parliament. Passing them will be an important step to correcting an inaccuracy and giving powers to enforce legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome and support both these orders. The first statutory instrument adds offences under the National Security Act to the list of relevant offences in the Police Act 1997, enabling the use of counter-drone powers by police and other authorised officials. This means they will have the power to use counter-drone technology and to take action against unmanned aircraft or drones which are being operated in an area around a prohibited place or a cordoned area without authorisation.

As has already been noted by noble Lords, we have seen an exponential increase in the use of drones in crime. It makes perfect sense to empower the police to tackle this rising threat. It is consistent with the evolving threat reflected in the debates on the National Security Act, which passed through this House last year.

I turn to the draft National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2025, which are also supported on this side of the House. As the Minister explained, this is a consequential amendment to the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2019. One can understand how these incidents occur, and it is clearly appropriate to make the order that is sought.

The National Security Act was a landmark achievement for the previous Conservative Government and passed with a good measure of parliamentary support across both this House and the other place. It reflected the evolving national security threat that our country faces. It places Britain at the forefront of efforts to protect our citizens, businesses, institutions and defence establishments from the ever-changing threats posed by hostile actors, cyber threats and covert intelligence measures. The only question I have for the Minister is: when does he estimate that the National Security Act will be fully in force?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the contributions from His Majesty’s Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Benches. I am grateful for the Opposition’s support for both orders, which are relatively straightforward and, I hope, totally uncontroversial. I hope that this House today, as well as the House of Commons in due course, will support them.

I will start with the extremely important and valid points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. The first relates to the potential for individuals not to know about a site or for the site sensitivity not to be obvious. The Government have considered that, where appropriate, steps should be taken to ensure that all prohibited places are clearly signposted for the benefit of the public. They will remain discretionary for a time, because it will not always be appropriate or practical for security reasons, but the prohibited places offences under the National Security Act 2023 take account of this. Whether or not signage is in place depends on the circumstances, and that would then determine whether or not an offence has been committed. For most places, signage is in place. There will be a limited number of places where there is no signage—but, again, it is not appropriate, even today, to talk about what types of prohibited places they may be, for reasons that are obvious.

The National Security Act 2023 protects our most sensitive sites against activity, which is why we welcomed it when it was introduced by the previous Government. Section 7 of the Act sets out what the prohibited places are, including certain Crown land in the UK, the sovereign base areas, defence establishments, and areas for the defence of a foreign state or the extraction of material for UK defence purposes, as well as sites owned or controlled by the UK intelligence services and used for their functions. Such prohibited places are inherently sensitive and therefore may be at risk. An offence might be committed under Section 5 if a person carries out unauthorised conduct in relation to that prohibited place. As has been mentioned, there would be a defence under legislation for that.

The noble Baroness asked, quite rightly, who has the responsibility of dealing with unidentified drones around these sites. The police forces play a major initial part in protecting UK defence sites from drone misuse, but responsibility for that misuse will depend on the site and its specific circumstances. The Home Office is trying to support the development of the national police counter-drone capability, which has taken place over the last five years. The SI provides greater assurances and outlines circumstances where action can be taken in relation to cordoned-off drone areas.

The noble Baroness specifically mentioned Chinese matériel. The National Police Chiefs’ Council is looking at, and collaborating with, military partners and other state drone operators to make sure that we align security standards. That means that we are looking at a national procurement framework that includes drones as part of this, and we are engaging with police forces to ensure that the suppliers added to the framework meet the required security standards.

Again, that will determine whether drones of any particular provenance are allowed to be used by UK police forces and others. That security assessment will, I hope, reassure the noble Baroness.

The final question, from the noble Lord, was about the full implementation of the National Security Act. I have to say to him: when parliamentary time allows and when government decisions have been taken. I will inform him when that moment is due to arrive.

Motion agreed.

National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 29 October be approved.

Motion agreed.

Retail Crime: Effects

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said, there is unanimity on the approach to the issue of shop theft, as has been eloquently outlined by my noble friend Lord Hannett. I thank him for securing this timely debate, and all who have spoken in it. My noble friend brings to his role in your Lordships’ House a wealth of experience in standing up for shop workers in his work for USDAW. He is continuing that work in conjunction with his colleague Paddy Lillis, who is the general secretary of USDAW. Most importantly, my noble friend brings the life experience of thousands of members in shops and stores across the United Kingdom, who have contributed to developing USDAW’s policy and, in doing so, the policy of the Labour Party and this Labour Government. They contributed too to the pressure that was put on the previous Conservative Government to take action.

I declare an interest: I have been a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers for 44 years. I have stacked shelves, worked the tills and delivered to people’s doors, so I know the pressures in retail. The noble Baroness may be interested to know that I did this for Tesco, and later the Co-op.

The important thing is that there is unanimity here today. We need to change the tenor of the debate on shop theft and the protection of shop workers. We have seen today that there is unanimity in this debate: it is not acceptable in our society to steal from shops; it is not acceptable to attack shop workers in the course of their duty; and it is not acceptable to undertake ram raids or organise crime raids on shops and outlets. This is not a victimless crime; it adds money to everybody’s bills and to the cost of strengthening security for staff, and this Government are committed to taking action on it.

We do so for the reasons that have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hannett, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkham, in a very powerful speech, and my noble friends Lord Monks and Lady Crawley and many others, who indicated that there is an unacceptable rise in the level of shop theft.

I particularly welcome the committee report that was produced. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, was a key member of the committee, along with my noble friend Lord Dubs—who, I must say, on his 92nd birthday is arguing in this Chamber for protection for shop staff and against shop theft. That shows the commitment that he has to his party and his cause but also to the good of the country at large. I wish him a very happy birthday.

Shop theft is up 29% in the year to June 2024 compared with the previous year. The British Retail Consortium crime survey has shown that around 475,000 incidents of violence occur each year. My noble friends Lord Monks, Lady Crawley and Lady Hazarika all mentioned the importance of tackling that crime. Whether it is on Lambeth High Street, in Brixton or in north Wales, where I am heading back this evening, there will be a concerted effort to ensure that we reduce the number of crimes that occur in shops. However, it is not just about the shoplifting; it is unacceptable to have 1,300 incidents of violence against staff in our communities at large.

It is not easy for this Government, and it will never be easy. But the points that the noble Lord, Lord Godson, and other Members of this House made today are extremely important. That is why the Government have a plan for action to both mirror some of the recommendations made by the Home Affairs Committee and Justice Committee of this House, and to commit to a range of things.

On a personal basis, having campaigned for some of these things for the best part of 20 years, I am absolutely delighted to stand at this Dispatch Box and to be able to put action in place, because we have a Government who have committed to do that. Among the actions that we will bring forward and put in place is a specific offence of attacking shop workers, which USDAW—which I am a proud member of—has campaigned for since 2003. Freedom from fear is an absolutely important issue. Shop staff are not just serving us but are upholding the law on alcohol, knife, solvent and tobacco sales. When they find themselves facing threats because of that, they deserve our support and our encouragement. That is why the Government will in due course, as a manifesto commitment, bring forward a specific offence of assaulting shop workers.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that the £200 threshold did not change the law but it sent a signal to the police that shoplifting under £200 was not an important issue. I recognised that in 2014 and I led the opposition to that. We forced a vote on that clause then because we thought it would downgrade the importance of shop theft, which, as a whole, it did. We will repeal that in due course and will make sure that the police have proper guidance on those issues.

We will, as a number of my noble friends mentioned, increase the number of neighbourhood police and PCSOs to 13,000, to have a named officer in each community who will work with the local community and look at the very issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, mentioned as well—community intelligence-gathering and community support. Through work we are doing now, which is a continuation of the previous Government’s work, we will look at Opal and Project Pegasus to co-ordinate action on gangs, tackling crime across borders and across police authorities.

There were points made in the debate which I will certainly reflect on, as well as the issue of drug and alcohol treatment orders and on technology, ensuring that we look at facial technology issues as a whole. We will reflect on those issues in due course, and when legislation on these issues comes before this House, which it will in relatively short order, we will be able to deal with those issues as a whole. We keep new technologies under review, and we will keep those technologies under review in the future.

I noticed a small frisson of concern from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, about the Labour Government’s Budget, which I will return to briefly in a moment. As my noble friend Lord Hannett said, it provided £100,000 for the National Police Chiefs’ Council, £5 million over the next three years to develop Operation Opal and £2 million over the next three years to build the National Business Crime Centre. If the noble Baroness looks at the detail in the Budget, she will see that there are proposals on business rates and on strengthening and revitalising the high street. I have campaigned for these issues over the last 10 to 20 years and I am more than proud to stand here today and say that this Government will take action on shop theft and assaults on retail workers in due course.

The facial recognition technology mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Kirkham and Lord Davies, is a very powerful tool and has huge potential to keep our streets safe. This gives us an opportunity to look at how we operate it. We particularly want to look at how we can put that on a firm footing to make our streets safe. In answer to their specific point, we want to ensure that we look at the legal framework and discuss that issue with the public over the coming months.

I am acutely aware that this House has been united today. There are no political differences. There may be differences over pressure, time and the things we have done, but there is unanimity that Parliament and Government should take action on these issues. A number of detailed issues were mentioned. I could go through them, but that would take time. I hope that the emphasis I have put on the measures the Government intend to bring forward give reassurance to all Members of this House that this Government are committed to the issue of shop theft.

The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, summed up the importance of this issue and how we need to focus on the staff. Shop workers will be on the train with me tonight. They will be on the bus going home. They will be walking the streets around you. They are the people who serve you and they deserve our support. The customers are there to support the staff and we need to make a stand to say that, although we will never eradicate shop theft or violence, it is a priority for the Government, the police and Parliament that, between us, we will help reduce crime, shoplifting and violence over the course of this Parliament.

I commend the measures that my noble friend Lord Hannett has proposed. We will hopefully find widespread support in due course for the measures that this Parliament will face when the Government bring them forward.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

Does my noble friend agree that the most shocking account in this debate was given by our noble friend Lady Hazarika who was in a shop when a rogue came in and stole two bottles of alcohol? He was known as a repeat offender and his identity was known. Would my noble friend agree that that is a most shocking account for this framework to improve the law?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention after I thought I had finished. Repeat offenders are part of a vicious cycle that needs to be broken. Part of that is due to alcohol or drug dependence and part of it is due to interventions in alcohol and drug dependence. That is part of the focus of the Ministry of Justice. The MoJ will look at many measures in relation to how we better tag, control and monitor offenders and what interventions we make to reduce their dependence on alcohol and drugs.

It is important that the revolving door of prison sentences—the cycle of people going into prison for six months, coming out, committing the offences that my noble friend Lady Hazarika mentioned, going back to prison, coming out again and then finding themselves homeless—needs to be broken. I know that my noble friend Lord Timpson, who is accountable to this House, is very exercised by those issues and will bring forward a number of measures to try to improve how we deal with offenders who have a persistent offending behaviour. Overall, the issues of tolerance are still there. We should not tolerate shoplifting, attacks on shop staff or organised crime gangs, and we should look collectively at what measures we can bring. I hope that I have given some indication to the House of how we can do that.

Tackling Stalking

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, it is a very old declaration of interest, but I was a member of the independent parliamentary inquiry on stalking, led by Elfyn Llwyd MP, which published its results in 2012 and led to the first change of legislation that identified stalking as a separate criminal offence, as opposed to it just being gathered in under harassment, as had happened before. I was also a victim of sustained stalking before the days of online stalking, over a period of two and a half years. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Thornhill was also in receipt of some of the very unpleasant attentions of this person.

The independent inquiry found that victims of stalking, whether domestic or not, had little confidence in the criminal justice system, from the way that police handled cases and helped victims and how the CPS frequently plea-bargained with perpetrators, resulting in a distinct lack of justice for egregious cases of stalking. I wish that I could say that this was history, but it is not. Nothing has changed in the cultural way that the entire criminal justice system deals with stalking. The law may have changed, but far too many stalking victims are still told that they should welcome the attention. Far too many find that their cases are plea-bargained away to harassment or some other minor offence and, as a result, that gives encouragement to the perpetrators. The reason that I mention this is that one of the things that was recognised was that many stalking cases involve perpetrators with fixated threats; they are manipulative people who have coercive-control behaviour, very deceitful behaviour and—most worryingly—with some perpetrators, a ratcheting-up of their illegal behaviour. Not enough is done to support victims of stalking.

In my particular case, it did not start with violence at all, but the reason why the police moved quickly at the end of a two and a half year period was because the perpetrator was using kitchen knives to slash tyres and their adviser said that, having done this to houses and damaged houses of the people he wanted to target, the next thing he would do after using these knives on inanimate objects would be to move to people. He was then swiftly arrested. Helpfully, he pleaded guilty and there has been nothing else since, but it was a pretty awful two and a half years.

This Statement focuses on the police response, where the Minister talks about those who have not been listened to or have even been told that they should have been flattered by the stalking actions. I welcome the fact that the Government recognise this, but the three issues that the Government are responding on—multi-agency statutory guidance on stalking, again; a review of stalking legislation, again; and publishing more data, again—are all welcome, but will not change things.

I pay particular tribute to Nicola Thorp. She is a brave woman, and we salute her, but she is one of many women who repeatedly have to tell their stories. Why, therefore, are false claims to families, friends and workplace victims able to be ignored when it comes to plea bargaining? I ask that, because these really manipulative stalkers do that. London’s victims’ commissioner, Claire Waxman, is herself a victim of stalking. Her perpetrator, whom she did not know, has been jailed seven times, and the behaviour continues. Once known, police can advise victims on how to protect themselves—for example, by installing alarms in their homes. If the individual who is being stalked recognises them, they can go to the police and say, “I’ve seen them in the vicinity of my house”. If they do not know who they are, how can they report when they are in danger?

I briefly mention one particular case where an ex-partner, who had continuously stalked his ex and her son, was given her new secret address by the children’s social worker, because he said he was so distraught at not being able to see his son. As a result of that action a handful of years ago, he broke into her new flat, threw his son against the wall and then raped the mother in front of the child. That is because the agencies did not know. It is fine to have victims informed, but can the Minister say whether other agencies involved in these cases will also know, so that that sort of mistake cannot be repeated?

Can the Minister also confirm, as has already been mentioned, that he will commit to requiring social media companies to publish reports setting out the actions that they have taken to address online abuse and stalking against women and girls? Will they be informed about these perpetrators who are repeat offenders? Social media companies will not pick it up on their own but, once they have a name and an IP address, which the police will have, it would be easy to do so.

I end by saying that I broadly welcome this Statement, as I think all victims of stalking do, but the biggest issue is how we can change the culture in the police and the criminal justice system. It is apparent that, 12 years since the new laws were introduced, it is the culture on the front line of the criminal justice system that needs to be changed.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful to His Majesty’s Opposition for their support for the measures and for the work that was done by the previous Government in highlighting and putting in place legislation that had Opposition support at the time to at least start to address this problem. I say to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I think the Government’s pledge, our manifesto commitment, to halve the level of violence against women and girls over a 10-year period will send a clear signal to both central government and external agencies that relate to government on this issue and many others that this is a really important issue that has to be addressed by the state and by other bodies involved in dealing with the state. I hope that will assure the noble Baroness that this issue is being raised in importance. With a target being set of halving of violence against women and girls, of which stalking forms part, that is a measurable impact that agencies, the police and others will need to respond to government on, and I hope that raises it as a whole.

I particularly welcome the mention by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, of Nicola Thorp and her work. It takes a great deal of bravery to come forward, and she has done that. He mentioned the co-operation between government departments. Certainly, the Ministry of Justice, the department of the Home Office that I represent, and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology have a stake in improving the performance of the Government and agencies in this area.

One thing that came out of this Statement, which both noble Lords mentioned, is the multiagency guidance and the guidance to various agencies dealing with this, including government agencies that are responsible as arm’s-length bodies or agencies delivering for central government departments. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said “again”, but I say to her that there has not been any guidance given to date by government on a multiagency basis that is effective. This is the first time this has happened and, in the Statement, we have agreed to do that.

Cyberstalking is important and will be part of the assessment of the government response downstream. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned resources. We are in a very strange time, as the House will recognise, when we have not yet announced the police settlement for next year until December, we have not yet allocated resources for 2025-26 and we have not yet determined, with the Treasury, resources for 2026-29. These matters will come in due course, but we have not done that yet.

The issue of culture change, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is extremely important, as is putting victims at the heart of the response, which is why we refer not just to Nicola Thorp but to the work of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and the way it has responded. The noble Baroness raised a number of issues relating to social media. That is equally important, but I say to all Members of this House that if they look at the Statement, the work on multiagency guidance will be brand-new and important. The review of legislation to see how we can improve many of the areas which both Front Bench spokespeople mentioned is important. The collection and publishing of data for the first time is important. The victim’s right to know, which the noble Baroness focused on, is extremely important, because once the victim knows, then steps can be taken and action monitored and individuals can respond to the agencies that I mentioned. That is in this proposed legislation the first time. The management of behaviour to tackle some of the long-term issues of low-level offenders, initially, who may raise the level of their game is equally important and is in for the first time. The stalking protection orders that we will put in place when parliamentary time allows are extremely important and will help prevent further engagement by stalkers when those are legislated. The national standards for examining how we can deal with individuals will raise the level of this issue and improve the performance of our agencies, which are all equally important.

Many of these matters that were announced in another place this week and are being repeated here today will require legislation in this or a later Session of Parliament, but I hope the Government’s intention is clear: we will not stand for stalking; we want to give victims protection; we want to improve the performance of the Government and their agencies in this area; and we want to ensure that there is a legal basis to give the type of protection that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, both suggested. This will be an ongoing discussion as legislation comes before the House, and I look forward to both noble Lords contributing to helping improve the performance for victims and the prevention of this activity in the first place.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement yesterday by the Government. I was taking part in an online conference organised by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust yesterday morning and the Minister, Jess Phillips, was there in her usual form—she has the ability, as a politician, to speak words that do not sound as if they are being spoken by a politician. In a way that was slightly pertinent to the debate we have just had, she understands the language that victims use themselves and need to hear so that they know they are being heard. I commend her for that. I have four particular points that I would like to raise.

The first is that the Government’s pledge to reduce the level of violence against women and girls is entirely welcome. It is a no-brainer. How to do it is of course the problem. At the moment, a lot of the funding for stalking is inextricably linked with that for domestic abuse. The two are not the same. They overlap, but a very significant part of stalking, about 64%, is not domestic abuse related and, if that is not recognised as the separate issue that it is, and is not given the right resources, we will continue to have all sorts of problems.

The second is that, while it is valiant to try to do something about the perpetrators, I think that that will not be done effectively by the current ways in which it is being done. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust has pioneered a programme called MASIP, which is a way of getting every informed body around the same table so that together they can speak with a real insight into and knowledge of the individual perpetrator, his history—it is usually a he—and behaviour, the type of stalker he is, the probability or possibility, if there is any, of his being able to be influenced to stop doing what he has been doing. That really needs to be encouraged. It is an existing best practice and it works.

Thirdly, access to independent stalking advocates is vital. The statistics are simply spellbinding. For every victim who has access to an independent stalking advocate, the chance of conviction is one in four. For a victim without that access, it is one in 1,000. Even those who do not know very much about statistics would recognise the quantum difference between the two.

The last is best practice. Jess Phillips mentioned yesterday, and it is in the Statement, the best practice that exists, for example, in Cheshire. Cheshire is really at the top of the Premier League—thinking about another Bill that is taking an inordinate amount of time your Lordships’ House—in terms of working in a co-coordinated way, being very open-minded and prepared to pioneer approaches that I fear the majority of police forces, for all sorts of good reasons, I am sure, have not done. We know that it works there incredibly well. The Government have inherited a system of 43 different police forces and 43 different police and crime commissioners, and we have a system where the British tendency to try to create the wheel in our own image repeatedly exists and flourishes in that environment. There is a point at which His Majesty’s Government will have to mandate best practice and ensure that it is adhered to. If we know it works, let us use it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his very constructive contribution. I cannot compete with Jess Phillips in terms of language, but I will certainly refer the points that have been made throughout this debate back to her. I think the noble Lord will recognise that Jess Phillips is absolutely 100% committed to meeting the target set in the Government’s manifesto. She is passionate about the issue of violence against women and girls and understands the very point the noble Lord mentioned about the difference between domestic violence and stalking. She is cognisant of the fact that she will need to work with other government departments, such as the Ministry of Justice, in particular, to improve performance in these areas.

The noble Lord mentioned stalking advocates, which is a very constructive contribution. I will refer to Jess Phillips’ speech, note it and look at how we can work with the suggestion in due course.

Best practice is extremely important. Cheshire is just over the border from where I live, and I know the area very well and all the good practice going on there. Part of the Government’s objectives, as set out in the Statement, is to ensure that we look at best practice, incorporate it into guidelines and work together with a number of agencies—health, police, probation and others—to give statutory guidelines downstream and to help support agencies in reducing the level of stalking and linked criminal activity.

The noble Lord makes an extremely valid point, because the question of advocates has arisen. Last year, the police recorded 131,912 stalking incidents, and only 8% of those ended up in a charge. Some 66,000 of those cases—this shocked me and will shock the noble Lord—were closed due to the victim not supporting action. The point he makes about stalking advocates is central to that issue; people need support, because for many it may be the first time they have come into contact with the criminal justice system. All of us have different experiences of it, but this might be the first time they have met with a police officer in the context of themselves or a court. Therefore, an expert who can stand back and provide guidance and reassurance might well lift that 52% non-progression rate. The number of people convicted of stalking offences, which increased last year under the previous Government by 39%, is still only 1,239; that compares with a recorded stalking offences figure of 131,000. That needs to change, along with the culture. I hope that the measures in this Statement will assist in that, if not complete the task.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement. Can the Minister respond to the question about whether the stalking legislation review will deal properly with stalking on the internet, which is increasing and terrifies people? I am concerned in particular about the circulation of deepfake pornography, its use and its close connection to stalking. Is he aware of the Private Member’s Bill which is going to be brought forward on Friday by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen? It deals with deepfake pornography and would provide a quick and easy win for the Government, should they be prepared to take it on. Can the Minister look at that?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for raising that issue. I can assure him, which I hope will help, that the Government intend to review the legislation on stalking. There are two pieces of legislation relating to stalking offences, and we want to have a deep dive into whether they are fit for the 21st century and for current offences. Are they appropriate not only for today, but for the future and the fast-moving pace of things such as cyber stalking, deepfakes, the internet, AI and other such mechanisms?

The legislation being debated on Friday will be responded to by the appropriate Minister, which is not me. I hope my noble friend will recognise that this a serious issue, and that the deep dive into reviewing such legislation will take into account all these matters.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I want to follow up on the last question, about online issues. I support today’s announcement of an extra 3,000 police officers, which is excellent. There will be 13,000 people working in neighbourhoods, which is fantastic. I also support this extra work for all the reasons that have been outlined, particularly the right to know who your online stalker is.

My question goes back to resources, and it is typical in one way, but I hope the Minister will understand exactly what I am talking about. Online investigations are difficult. Often, the attacker is abroad; you have to establish the digital profile and, once it is known that they are abroad, the investigation may go no further. The neighbourhood officer will not be able to do that; specialists will be needed. If we are to mimic the Cheshire example, which follows the Met example of individuals fixated on members of the monarchy—it is a good example, and it works—that will take resources. My plea is not a general one for the police to have loads more; it is about the specialism of the resources, and it will not all be cops. It is about how you get the balance right to make sure that these things happen.

Often, the cultural response, which has been rightly identified, is that they do not know how to approach this issue and have not got the resources to do it, so it ends up getting parked. That is not a good outcome, but I am afraid it is what happens when the expertise and resources are not always available to follow things up. If the Government can address that issue, without using tens of thousands of people, it will really help going forward.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his broad welcome for the Statement on stalking made by my honourable friend Jess Phillips in the House of Commons yesterday. It is important that we get former senior police officers such as him endorsing that approach, so I welcome his endorsement and thank him for it. He will know that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have today reconfirmed the provision of an additional 13,000 neighbourhood police officers. That will help at a local level with a range of issues, but I take his point about the need for specialist support.

As I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I cannot give a commitment on resources today because December’s police settlement, next year’s settlement and the spending review have not yet been announced. However, the specialism to which the noble Lord refers will form part of the needs and assessment review. The Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing need to look at those issues, and again, that will be part of the mix going forward. I assure the noble Lord and the House as a whole that the Government wish to address this serious issue. They have taken steps to do so in this Statement, and welcome contributions on how that can be built upon.

Ultimately, we will be judged by the test of whether we reduce the number of reported incidents, increase the number of incidents that are followed up and increase the number of prosecutions, as well as, in the longer term, taking steps to ensure that young boys, as they grow into young men and adults, have respect and understand their role in society. That is a longer-term issue that we need to be working on. I take the noble Lord’s points and I hope I have answered them as best I can, but they are issues we will return to.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s repeat of the Commons Statement. It is right that the Statement should focus on the victims of this horrendous behaviour, and that that is the heart of the response. However, we have to ask ourselves what we are getting wrong as a society that causes people to perpetrate this sort of behaviour. I do not think it is just about evil people; it is learned behaviour, and learning is part of how we raise people in this society.

The Statement touches on that issue, as did my noble friend towards the end of his last reply. It refers to the need to engage with the perpetrators, to consider the root causes of the behaviour and to address it. All of that needs more attention and more resources, particularly but not just in the sphere of mental health. I was particularly struck by the reference by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to someone who had been in prison seven times because of this behaviour. My assumption is that nothing happened in that prison to address those behaviours, and unless we get that right, dealing with the outcomes is the wrong end of the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his contribution. He raises an issue which I touched on briefly in answering the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe: how society approaches stalking. Stalkers do not just appear, aged 18, 25, 35, 45; they are formed by the way in which they are educated and the communities they live in, in the context of the respect they need to show to their fellow members of society. That is a much wider issue, but the Government are cognisant of it and are trying to look at long-term solutions.

My noble friend mentioned the individual mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who had been in prison for multiple offences. That is a difficult challenge that we have to address. Again, this will be partly through the national standards for progress and the examination that has been trailed in this Statement on managerial behaviour and partly through the way in which the Probation Service, on a multiagency basis and with the guidelines that we will set, will make interventions with those individuals who have been proved to be perpetrators. The Government are cognisant of those issues, and we will be taking them forward in the next three years.

An extremely important issue is the right of victims to know who the perpetrator is. Pre conviction, that gives at least some security that we know that steps can be taken and we can look at interventions to change behaviour. This is about preventing stalking and the harm that it brings. That goes right back to early prevention and early education, right the way through to dealing with persistent offenders. I hope that, at the very least, this Statement has set a direction of travel that the Government can follow.

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Seizure and Detention of Property: Code of Practice) (Northern Ireland) Order 2024

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 31 October be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 2 December.

Motion agreed.