Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Lord Pannick

Committee stage
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Since the Minister rightly accepts that there is a test of proportionality under the Human Rights Act, would it not be better to put it in the Bill, so that everybody understands—whether they are magistrates, judges, solicitors or counsel—that that is the test? That would provide a great deal of comfort and protection for those who may be subject to the orders.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have great respect for the noble Lord’s contributions. I have heard what he said, but I believe that this is the right way forward. We can always examine his comments again and I appreciate the way in which he has contributed to the debate.

Amendment 6, from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, seeks to ensure that any positive requirements placed on the recipient of a respect order are restricted to those which would prevent a future breach of the order. Positive requirements to address the underlying causes of the behaviour are an important aspect of the respect order. That is a key point that I want to impress on noble Lords today. While the legislation sets out a number of restrictions on how positive requirements can be used, it is the Government’s view that the amendment is unnecessarily restrictive and that courts and agencies should have the discretion to tailor positive requirements to the particular needs of each case.

Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and also spoken to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, would limit the amount of time that a respect order may be in effect to two years. As it stands, there is no limit on the time a respect order might be in effect for, and I think that is the right thing to do. Again, there will be secondary action under the respect order only in the event of a breach taking place. If, for example, someone has previously been a persistent offender and the order puts in place an unlimited time, that would be reasonable until such time as the behaviour is noted. Implementing a two-year time limit might be of some difficulty and would not necessarily tailor against the individual’s behaviour. I come back to the central point that, ultimately, no action is taken against the individual if they do not breach the order.

The duration of a respect order is dependent on the specific circumstances of each case. That will be determined by the courts. I do not expect that every respect order will be imposed for an indefinite period, but that option should be available if there are relentless adult ASB perpetrators. The legislation makes provision for respect orders to be varied or discharged depending on the circumstances of the case.

Amendment 9, again tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would make it a requirement that an applicant must gain full council approval for all local authority-led applications for a respect order. It is proper quite that, while some councils may seek full council approval for PSPOs, there is no legislative requirement for them to do so. It should be noted that respect orders, unlike PSPOs, are granted by the courts, which provides additional safeguards to ensure that respect orders are used proportionately—this goes back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Whereas PSPOs impose prohibitions on the general public, respect orders will be for individuals who have a history of disruptive, anti-social behaviour.

I return to the fact that, if individuals do not breach an order, the matter will go no further. It is the Government’s view that, given this distinction, it would not be appropriate to require full council approval for all respect orders—which quite honestly is self-evident. I have been a councillor and spent time in council committees, so I know that there is potential for delay. It might take a long time to make an order, which would risk us not taking action quickly and supportively for the benefit of victims and communities at large. The amendment might also require a full public consultation when applying for a respect order, but I do not believe that that is the way to run respect orders or to impact on individuals.

Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to add non-crime hate incidents to the definition of anti-social behaviour. I respectfully say to him that we are going to use the phrase “non-crime hate incidents” during the course of the Bill in relation to a number of amendments, including those tabled by his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Young. As I have previously said publicly in the House, the College of Policing—under the chairmanship of his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs—will very shortly produce a review of non-crime hate incidents. There has also been discussion by the Metropolitan Police on what it is doing. I hope that the review will help inform later stages of the Bill. At this stage, I believe that, while we should not kick Amendment 10 down the line—we will come back to the subject of the amendment—we should not deal with it in relation to Clause 1.

Asylum Seekers: MoD Housing

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Lord Pannick

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord and hope he enjoyed his time at both barracks and found it convivial, as far as possible given the service it presumably had at that time. We are trying to ensure that this is a temporary measure. Ultimately, the purpose of all this is to ensure that we process people very quickly, eventually with off-site decision-making, and that we then disperse or remove those individuals when asylum decisions are taken. I will look into the £1.3 million that the noble Lord mentioned and give him a formal response by letter. Please rest assured that the purpose of this is to provide temporary accommodation to reduce hotel numbers, and ultimately to help us on the path to reduce them to zero.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The Minister just acknowledged that speedy determination of asylum claims is essential to addressing this problem. You obviously need less accommodation if people can be moved on when they have no asylum claim, and moved to other countries speedily. That will have a greater deterrent effect on those who want to come here. What is the current backlog of asylum claims? What are the Government doing to ensure more speedy determination of those claims?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful that the noble Lord has put his finger on a point that the Government have also put their finger on. The current initial claim for decision-making on outstanding asylum decisions is around 91,000. In the last three months alone, the number of people awaiting that initial decision has fallen by 19,000, or 17%. That is because we have taken decisions to put extra staff into that area to speed up asylum applications, and we are looking at using that newfangled thing, AI, to try to improve speedy applications and understanding of those applications. It is absolutely right that we get those application numbers down. The number of people awaiting a decision is down by 24% over the period of the previous Government.

Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Lord Pannick

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. It dribbles on from day to day because Members continue to ask similar questions to those being covered, which they are entirely within their rights to do. He will know that the trial collapsed because the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service deemed that the evidence they had was not sufficient to secure a conviction. That was their decision, made independently of the Government. They made that decision, and that is why the trial has collapsed. Members of both Houses seek to press the Government still further on a range of issues around that, which is their absolute right, but the basic facts are that that is what happened.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I am one of many Members of the House who is finding it difficult to understand the reasoning of the Director of Public Prosecutions as to why the evidence was insufficient to take this matter to a jury. The DPP is, of course, supervised by the Attorney-General. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is a Member of this House. It would be very helpful to know whether the Attorney-General agrees with the assessment made by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I can say to the noble Lord that the Government are extremely disappointed in the outcome of the event not going to trial, but that is not a matter for the Government or the Attorney-General. The independence of the Crown Prosecution Service and the DPP is central. They have taken that decision. I and the Government find it very frustrating, but that is the decision that has been taken. If the noble Lord had expected me or any other Minister to interfere in that decision, we would certainly be quite rightly roasted in this House for interfering with judicial independence.

Manchester Terrorism Attack

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Lord Pannick

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. It is really important that those of different faiths from the Jewish community stand with them and express their solidarity and support. These are attacks against an aspect of life—their religion and very being—that they cherish very dearly. It is simply not acceptable. In the wake of a number of recent incidents, the coming together of churches and people from the Jewish faith and of the Islamic faith has been extremely important in giving comfort and support to those who have been victims of those terrorist attacks. The Government, through Ministers in other departments—not the Home Office, which I speak for—are looking at how we bring together those faiths and how we build resilience.

The simple thing I want, which might be an ambition the whole House will share, is to have an open, tolerant society that recognises and cherishes our differences of approach to religion, community and faith. That means that people of all traditions should work together, and the Government can facilitate that. I am pleased to see my noble friend Lord Khan of Burnley in the Chamber, who put a tremendous amount of effort over the past 12 months in his role in government into reaching out to all faiths, including several hundred visits to mosques, synagogues and churches. I know that work was personally driven, but it is also important it was government driven, with the support of government, to try to do exactly what the right reverend Prelate said and what the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats said: to bring together communities to identify problems and challenges and, we hope, to have a concerted, collective approach to solving them.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister, the Front Benches and the right reverend Prelate for the sympathetic remarks they have made, which will be much appreciated by the Jewish community. I also associate myself with the Minister’s remarks about the performance of the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, which again was very much appreciated by the Jewish and many other communities.

The Minister will appreciate that the Yom Kippur attack, appalling as it was, is not an isolated event. What does it say about our society that for several years, not just in the past two weeks, synagogues, Jewish schools and Jewish communal events have required security protection? This is not the sort of society that we want to live in. What can we do to address why it is that Islamists and their supporters threaten the Jewish community? They tear down photographs of the hostages, for whose release we are all deeply appreciative. Islamist doctors abuse Jewish patients and students chant “Zios should be buried in the ground”. How is it, I ask the Minister, that people brought up and educated in this country think it appropriate to behave in this manner?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful. I condemn all those actions that the noble Lord mentioned in his contribution. It is a worry as to how that has manifested itself, and that is a long-term issue that we the Government need to examine. People should be allowed to live their lives in peace and security in their communities, without physical security. But it is important that we provide—as we have done—some £18 million to the Jewish community this year through the Community Security Trust.

We have supplied an even larger amount of money to help protect mosques and places of religion of the Islamic community, because, as the Peacehaven arson attack showed, this is not something that is restricted to one side of the community. If people have differences of opinion on political issues—and there are differences of opinion on some of the political issues relating to situations in the Middle East—I want to see them resolve those through political process, not through violence, intimidation or harassment.

I say to the noble Lord that, as a Government, we will do what we can to ensure that we return to a position where political differences are resolved by discussion and where respect for other people’s lives and community activity is engendered in our society. But, until we can get to that stage, we have to provide—and the Government will provide—financial, political and material support to protect people to live their own lives.

I hope, when we do that, that the Jewish community, in this instance in particular, wherever it resides in the United Kingdom, will take comfort from the fact that the Government remain on its side to ensure that it can enjoy its life in whichever way it seeks to enjoy it without fear, intimidation or harassment. That is why we have not only brought forward the measures to date but are also looking at potential measures to improve security in relation to protests and parades.

Asylum Claims: Religious Conversion

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Lord Pannick

Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am very happy to give my noble friend that assurance. As I said, the Government want to meet their international obligations and will do so under refugee conventions and according to their responsibilities under human rights legislation. But I hope she will accept that we also need to test people’s claims individually when they make them against the criteria for remaining in the United Kingdom. If an individual claims Christian conversion, at whatever stage of their application, clearly that needs to be examined and tested and, ultimately, a decision will be made individually on that basis.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that the efficiency of the asylum system and of the immigration system as a whole depends not just on speedy decision-making but on speedy removal of those people who have no right to remain? Will the Minister please update the House on what steps the Government are taking to persuade other countries to take back their nationals who have no right to remain here?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right: it is integral to the success of the immigration and asylum system that those who have no right to remain in the United Kingdom are removed speedily. Since July 2024, this Government have improved the performance on those removals. We need to engage with our partner nations to ensure that countries are willing to receive individuals, but the basic principle of the asylum system is that we are open to meeting our international obligations. If someone seeks asylum and it is approved, they will be accepted. If it is not approved, they have no right to live in the United Kingdom and that speedy removal should take place, as the noble Lord said.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Lord Pannick

Committee stage
Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I draw the Committee back to where we are at the moment: an individual in detention can have 30 minutes’ worth of legal advice very quickly after they have requested it. There may be an issue around take-up. We are monitoring take-up on a regular basis and want to increase that take-up, but that 30 minutes is there. If further advice is required, on the merits test that can be taken forward as of now.

My noble friend’s amendment may take that issue wider than that discussion. It is the Government’s objective to speed up claims to get to decisions on asylum. We are doing that through executive action, not legislation, increasing the number of people taking decisions and making it much quicker and fairer, because that is in the public interest, as has been mentioned by all. I do not think we are going to resolve that issue in Committee today. I have tried to set out where I think we are, and my noble friend has tabled his amendment.

Serious questions have been raised on these issues by me, by the noble Viscount and by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment, because I believe the Government’s case as I have put it is the right course of action on those issues. If we are going to have even further discussion on the points he has made, we need to have some better information on which to base it, even though I accept that for some members of the Committee, that becomes a matter of principle.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am very grateful. The noble Lord has been very generous with time on this important matter. I entirely understand his point that further factual information is required. Will he do his best to ensure that we do not wait until Report to receive that information, and that at least those who have spoken in this debate and the Library generally receive a written explanation of the factual position as seen by the department on the cost of implementing the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, the 30 minutes, and the take-up? Will he also commit to meeting with noble Lords who are concerned about this matter, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Bach, so we can see whether there is a way forward prior to Report?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for that intervention. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, are valid and I will do my best to examine them. Some of these issues are within the Ministry of Justice, not the Home Office, but I will examine those points in detail and make sure that we respond to those who have spoken in the debate and potentially put a note in the Library of the House accordingly.

I want to re-emphasise that the Government strongly believe that there is a good offer at the moment. That offer is available to all who seek it, and there is the potential for further advice if the case merits it and for us to examine how we monitor take-up. I will certainly look at the points that have been raised, but in the meantime, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.