Independent Office for Police Conduct

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend will know that in the King’s Speech there was a proposal to establish greater accountability for the police, improve standards and review the work of the College of Policing. That will be brought before this House in due course and within this Session of Parliament.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister elaborate on what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the appointments system for senior roles within the Independent Office for Police Conduct is transparent, robust and free from any perception of bias, so as to maintain the much-needed public confidence in its impartiality?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Independent Office for Police Conduct is accountable to Ministers, as it was when the Opposition were in Government. There has been a recommendation from a review of the Cabinet Office’s public bodies review programme. That review was published in March 2024, when the noble Lord’s Government were in office. It looked at the whole question of the IOPC’s governance, accountability, efficiency and efficacy. There were 93 recommendations in that report, 73 of which have been accepted by the IOPC. The remaining recommendations were in his Government’s in-tray. They are now being reviewed and will be implemented shortly by this Government. Included in them is the method by which the IOPC is accountable to Ministers and therefore to this House and the House of Commons.

United Front Work Department

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have recently decided to pivot back towards closer ties with China, with the Prime Minister saying he intends to pursue a “pragmatic” relationship with it. The advice from the security services has been clear: the foreign influence registration scheme, which has been delayed by this Government until next year, will deter Chinese spying only if China is designated in the enhanced list of threats to the UK. First, will His Majesty’s Government commit to placing China on the enhanced list of threats when that scheme arrives next year? Secondly, will they do so regardless of the new Prime Minister’s increasing desire to have close relationships with China?

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

The first answer is that the Government will take a long-term, consistent approach to China and the dealings we have with it. It is important that we co-operate where we can on international matters such as climate change, and compete where we need to on business and on trade. When UK national security is at stake, it is really important that we challenge robustly any influence or actions by the Chinese Government on security matters. This House needs to understand that.

The noble Lord mentioned FIRS. We inherited the Act that passed in 2023, which was jointly supported by the then Official Opposition and His Majesty’s Government. That scheme is under development now. We anticipate having it in place by summer next year. Within that, we will take action accordingly to designate specific countries if the United Kingdom’s security is threatened. We will make decisions on that and announce them to the House in due course. I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that the United Kingdom takes all threats seriously and will be robust in its actions on those threats, including from any nation state that seeks to advance its aims in a subversive way versus the interests of the United Kingdom.

Border Security: Collaboration

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and welcome the Government’s decision to pause Syrian asylum claims. We welcome the fall of the Assad regime and wait to see what will happen in Syria, although the risk of instability is high.

On the subject of new international agreements relating to border security, I am afraid that I cannot be as positive. The Government’s record so far on border security and immigration has been an unmitigated disaster. Illegal small boat crossings have surged on their watch, with record numbers of dangerous journeys across the channel putting lives at risk. This is a direct consequence of the Labour Government’s inability to get a grip on the problem and their refusal to make the hard choices necessary to secure the borders. The public know it and statistics prove it. Under Labour, the UK has become a magnet for criminal smuggling gangs. No doubt the Minister will tell me that the Government will be judged on the success of their delivery. Well, I can tell the Minister that he is being judged now and it is not a good look.

The agreements reached with Germany and the Calais Group may sound good on paper but what is missing is any real action or delivery. Where is the urgency? What are the tangible results? Where are they? Smuggling networks remain entrenched. The enforcement measures announced today amount to little more than tinkering around the edges. The Home Secretary said in the other place that her approach was delivering results, but the facts do not bear that out. I can put it no better than my right honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary did:

“In the 150 days since the election, more than 20,000 people dangerously and illegally crossed the English channel, 18% more than did so in the same 150 days in the previous year. I do not call an 18% year-on-year increase ‘delivering results’; that is a failure”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/24; col. 902.]


This country deserves better. The British people want stronger borders, a controlled immigration system and criminals brought to justice. Yet Labour’s track record, now and during its last time in Government, shows that it cannot be trusted to deliver on any of these priorities.

Therefore, I ask the Minister a few questions. First, can he clarify what specific, measurable steps the Government are taking to dismantle criminal smuggling networks, domestically and internationally? Secondly, what provisions are in place to ensure that the agreements with Germany and the Calais Group deliver urgent, tangible results rather than just more headlines? Thirdly, will the Government consider further legislative changes to enhance border security and ensure tougher penalties for smuggling gangs and those facilitating illegal crossings? Fourthly, given the sharp increase in channel crossings year on year, how does the Minister reconcile this trend with the Home Secretary’s claim that the Government’s approach is delivering results? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches we welcome the Statement, although I do wish that these Statements were not always headed as being about border security. It is about much more than security. In particular, we welcome the collaborative approach, which we see as essential to international issues.

The Statement mentions Syria. I appreciate that the Statement is not really about Syria but as it is in here, let me take the opportunity to ask—although I think I can anticipate the answer—whether the Government are yet seeing any impact either of Syrians in this country who are now wanting to go back to the Middle East or any new wave of asylum seekers coming from Syria.

The Statement refers to wider crimes. We know that organised crime covers a wide area and that these things are all related. It lists violence, exploitation, money laundering and drug trafficking. I am sure that the Government see that people trafficking and illegal working are all part of the picture—but I would be glad of the confirmation.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked about higher penalties. It is the same with policing. It is catching people, rather than the penalties, which is the deterrent. Given his background, I would be surprised if he disagreed with that. The Statement also refers to legislation identified by the Germans as being needed to add to their measures. Have the UK Government identified any need for further legislation here? I hope not, because legislation is often referred to as being the solution when so often it is action that is needed.

Finally, I express one major reservation. Safe and legal routes are not mentioned. Were they part of the discussions between the international parties?

Domestic Abuse: Victims and Survivors

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, in addressing this extremely important topic I sincerely thank my noble friend Lady Chisholm of Owlpen for securing this debate, and thank all noble Lords who have made enormously important contributions.

Let me be clear: domestic abuse is a scourge on our society, and we must take all the steps we can to eliminate it. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that victims and survivors of these horrific crimes deserve the strongest assurances that His Majesty’s Government can give that they are doing all that they can to eliminate domestic abuse.

My noble friend referred to Her Majesty the Queen’s documentary “Behind Closed Doors”, which tells the harrowing stories of women subjected to domestic abuse, with many victims bravely speaking out and Her Majesty the Queen doing an impressive service to bring this to the country’s attention. I do not think any of us would fail to be touched by the stories of the victims.

As the Government over the last 14 years, the Conservatives took a number of steps to seek to eliminate domestic abuse and, as referred to by a number of noble Lords, to reduce violence against women and girls more broadly. However, as always, it is important to be honest: there is certainly more that we could have done when in power to address this issue. We welcome the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls introducing the new pilot domestic abuse protection order. As the noble Lord, Lord Patten, mentioned, we should not forget violence towards senior citizens, and in many cases it is hidden.

Last year, there were 2.4 million reported victims of domestic abuse, which is a tragic statistic. The numbers seem to be on the rise, and it is certainly the case that my party looks on these statistics with great sadness and anger, as I am sure do all noble Lords.

We tried to tackle the problem of domestic abuse in our 14 years in power but it is not easy. First, we elevated violence against women and girls to a crime type that policing leaders must treat as a national threat, ensuring that victims can always access professional support. We committed a total of over £230 million to our Tackling Domestic Abuse Plan from 2022 to 2025, including quadrupling funding for victim and witness support services by 2024-25, which complemented our £300 million investment in our 2021 tackling VAWG strategy as part of our goal to drive down the prevalence of domestic abuse.

Secondly, we toughened sentences for rapists and stalkers, making sure that they feel the full force of the law. We doubled the maximum sentence for stalkers from five to 10 years, with the average sentence length for adult rape now nine years and eight months, up from six and a half years in 2010. This increase of 46% keeps those who devastate communities behind bars for longer.

Thirdly, we launched the end-to-end rape review, delivering victim-centred system change for victims of rape in the long term. We met ambitious targets set out in the review ahead of schedule to more than double the number of adult rape cases reaching court by the end of the last Parliament, and to return volumes of cases being referred to the police to at least 2016 levels, ensuring that justice is done for the most horrific crimes.

Fourthly, we created new offences of coercive control, strengthening protections for victims. We introduced the offence of coercive or controlling behaviour to recognise behaviour that stops short of serious physical violence but which amounts to extreme psychological and emotional abuse, helping bring perpetrators to justice.

Finally, I should mention that I well remember my own experience as a police officer in the 1980s and the 1990s, when it was quite difficult at times to bring assailants to trial at Crown Court, as in many cases the victim was unwilling to proceed with the matter either due to threats or other reasons and was unprepared to give evidence. It is a real challenge—a great challenge to the police and to the criminal justice system.

One of the things that we did get right, though, was that we introduced measures to make it easier for victims to give evidence in court, ensuring that they can give a full account of the offending without having to face defendants in person. Rape victims are now able to pre-record their evidence, ensuring that they can give a full account of the offending without having to face defendants in court. I suggest that this is an enormous step forward, and I am sure the House agrees. All these measures are aimed at supporting victims and survivors of violence against women and girls, and clamping down hard on those who commit these heinous crimes.

I am sure that, on this occasion, the Minister will welcome the work done by the previous Government on this, as it is a matter above party politics. Can he perhaps confirm, first, whether the Government will continue to work with our Benches on key issues to prevent violence against women and girls? Secondly, as the previous Government had committed £230 million to the Tackling Domestic Abuse Plan from 2022 to 2025, including quadrupling funding for victim and witness support services by 2024-25, can the Minister perhaps confirm whether this Government will honour that commitment?

As we come up to the Christmas period—the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, is absolutely right—we must bear in mind that Christmas is not a happy time for everybody in our country. It is a fact that it is a period when cases of domestic abuse rise. I hope the Minister takes these questions in good nature, and I wish to offer my support to help him and his ministerial team so that we can present a very unified voice on this issue.

Tackling Stalking

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to your Lordships’ House. On this side, we welcome the Government’s announcement on stalking. I am sure that all noble Lords will wish to do everything that we possibly can to tackle violence against women and girls. There have been many tributes paid to Nicola Thorp for sharing her experiences, and I wish to echo those. It takes courage to speak up, and I cannot thank her enough for raising this situation.

The previous Conservative Government made real progress on this issue. I can put it no better than the shadow Minister in the House of Commons, who said:

“We launched our tackling violence against women and girls strategy to increase support for victims. We elevated violence against women and girls to a crime type that police leaders must treat as a national threat. We ensured that victims can always access professional support. We doubled the maximum sentence for stalkers from five to 10 years, keeping behind bars for longer those who devastate their victims’ lives. We also made stalking a specific offence, to ensure that women and girls are protected and to show beyond doubt that stalking is a crime”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/24; col. 184.]


The number of people who have been stalked dropped 0.5% from 2010 to 2024, according to the Office for National Statistics. We on this side of the House very much welcome the Government’s actions on stalking, and we want to work with them to eradicate this crime once and for all. I wish to ask the Minister just a couple questions around this. Can he confirm that, in continuing the excellent work of the previous Government, conversations are happening with relevant Ministers in the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that there is a truly cross-departmental focus on eradicating stalking? Also has the Minister had conversations with officials in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to ensure that cyberstalking is being clamped down on? What resources is the Minister providing to police forces to ensure that this heinous crime is being tackled in all cases?

In closing, let me say that the Government can be assured that we on this side of the House will continue to fully support efforts to combat this abhorrent behaviour.

[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.

Retail Crime: Effects

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannett of Everton, for bringing this important debate to the House and for the work he has done and is doing in this important area. Indeed, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful and very sincere contributions this evening. I think we can all agree that the impact of retail crime on workers, the community and local economies is a real threat to businesses and people’s livelihoods. As a Conservative, I believe in being tough on crime and I welcome any attempt by the Government to stamp out retail crime where they see it.

We have heard a lot today about the record of the previous Government. Since 2010 neighbourhood crimes, including burglary, robbery and theft from the person, are down by 48% and overall violent crime is down by 44%, with more police officers on the streets than in 2010. The previous Government took a number of significant steps to reduce and prevent retail crime. Our plan, Fighting Retail Crime: More Action was launched on 10 April and highlighted five areas of work to tackle retail crime. We made it easier for retailers to report crime by allowing them to send CCTV footage of an incident to allow it to be processed as quickly as possible after an offence is committed. However, there has been a worrying rise in shoplifting and violence towards retail workers, which we need to address.

Police-recorded crime figures show that shoplifting offences—I will use that term just for the moment—increased by 37% in the 12 months to December 2023, although the number of people charged with shoplifting offences in the same period rose by 46%, which demonstrates that the previous Government took shoplifting and retail crime extremely seriously.

I want to address the issue of shop theft under £200, which has been referred to in this debate as “decriminalisation”. We did not change the law on shop theft; it has always been a criminal offence. However, under the previous Government it was made a summary offence in 2014. To stress this point, we did not decriminalise shop theft under the value of £200. It remains a punishable offence under the Theft Act but a summary-only offence, triable at a magistrates’ court. I assure noble Lords, given my background in policing, that it is a Section 1 offence, it has always been considered as a Section 1 offence by me, and I think “shoplifting” is a rather unfortunate term. When I think back to my own policing experience, I spent some years as a CID officer at Marylebone police station, which covered Oxford Street, one of the busiest streets in London.

The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, raised a very important point about processing these people. One of the big challenges when you have a police station full of people who are perhaps of no fixed abode or have come to London on a shopping spree is dealing with them administratively, which is very difficult and takes time. It is all well and good talking about resources for police, but the question is how we deal with these people, and perhaps we have to streamline how we do so.

If I may, I have some questions for the Government. In our plan, the Conservatives included a presumption towards electronic monitoring as part of a sentence served in the community for those who repeatedly steal from shops. Can the Minister confirm whether His Majesty’s Government will be doing the same, building on this good work? This legislative change will provide that, on the third sentencing occasion, an offender would be electronically monitored as part of any community sentence, or post-release for the duration of any licence period. Will the Minister confirm whether the legislation will be changed as we intended?

Finally, in government, the Conservatives introduced the crime of assault specifically against retail workers. The previous Government pledged the use of facial recognition technology to help catch perpetrators and prevent shoplifting in the first place, backed by a £55.5 million investment. Can the Minister assure the House that this investment will continue to be provided at the same level, as a minimum, by the current Government?

We must take a moment to think of lone retail workers, often working late at night to serve their communities, who may be victims of opportunistic crime. It is imperative that we support those who work in this sector and seek the harshest possible penalties for those who seek to disrupt our social fabric by attacking retail workers. I feel sure that the Minister, together with the House, will agree with me on this point.

As a former police officer of 32 years, I know how important it is that the police are well-funded, supported and seen as integral to the community. I also know how important it is to tackle retail crime, and the deep harm it causes to local communities. I point to our good record in this area but note that there is always more to be done. I look forward to receiving answers from the Minister and to listening to what he has to say. I thank noble Lords for their attention.

Respect Orders and Anti-social Behaviour

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to the House. As Conservatives, we stand against anti-social behaviour in all its forms. It is not right that people feel unsafe in their communities and that the consequences of anti-social behaviour are felt by shops, businesses and residents alike. We welcome all efforts to tackle anti-social behaviour, but I ask the Minister whether he believes that respect orders are anything

“more than a press release or a rebrand”,—[Official Report, Commons, 27/11/24; col. 794.]

as the honourable Member for Stockton West said in the other place. Does the Minister think that respect orders are necessary, given that they are near-identical to existing powers held by the police?

We completely reject the notion that the previous Conservative Government was anything but the party of law and order. That Government launched the anti-social behaviour action plan, backed by £160 million of funding and with over 100,000 hours of police and another uniform patrols undertaken to tackle anti-social behaviour hotspots. Given that the Minister’s party seems keen on releasing serious offenders early, how does this align with its plan to decrease anti-social behaviour? Surely many of these dangerous individuals, who have been released on to our streets before they have served their sentence in full, will need more than a respect order to prevent them reoffending.

The Minister for Policing told the House of Commons that

“respect orders are different from criminal behaviour orders”.

She continued:

“Criminal behaviour orders are attached where there is a conviction, and the Crown Prosecution Service applies in court for that criminal behaviour order. Respect orders will not require a conviction”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/11/24; col. 795.]


Will the Minister outline what sort of behaviour will be covered by a respect order and what the penalties will be for them?

The previous Conservative Government created over 20,000 police officers and fulfilled our manifesto commitment on this. By March this year, the police headcount hit its highest ever number on record. We are most definitely the party of law and order, and I will repeat the question asked in the other place, which was left unanswered by the Minister there—perhaps the Minister will answer me now. It was

“the last Government increased funding for frontline policing by £922 million for this year—will the Government match that increase next year?”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/11/24; col. 795.]

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, a return to proper neighbourhood policing, with officers who know and are known to the communities that they serve, is absolutely essential to tackle the misery caused by anti-social behaviour.

The part of the Statement about respect orders raises a number of issues, which we will return to, no doubt, when we look at the policing Bill. For example, what burden of proof will be required for the courts to approve such an order, and how will police work with communities to ensure that repeated reporting and gathering of evidence has the desired effect? How will the courts deal with applications in a timely manner, given the enormous backlog of cases already before them? What will be the bar for anyone who breaches these orders to find themselves in jail? It is an easy headline to say that offenders will end up in prison, but there is currently such an acute shortage of prison spaces that the Government are already having to release people early. What safeguards will be in the Bill to ensure that these orders do not inadvertently reinvent the Vagrancy Act, in effect, criminalising homelessness?

I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to removing the de facto threshold of £200 for attracting any action on goods stolen from shops. Last week, one of my friends went into a local pharmacy, where she was picking up a prescription. A few minutes later, a young man walked in, carrying a very large bag, and set to clearing the shelves of all the over-the-counter medication. When somebody who was standing there mentioned the police, he just laughed. Afterwards, the staff said that he comes in on a regular basis but that they are too scared to try to stop him.

Sadly, this is not an isolated story: it is part of a rising tide sweeping the country. The numbers are staggering. In 2023, the Association of Convenience Stores recorded 5.6 million incidents of shoplifting—more than a fivefold increase from the previous year. That is 46,000 thefts every day.

Can the Minister say anything about how the Government intend to deploy technology to make it easier for retailers to log crime by repeat offenders, thereby helping to build a picture that can be used to prosecute? I took a quick look at the Met’s reporting tool over the weekend. The website estimates that it takes 15 minutes to report a non-violent shoplifting offence. I cannot imagine that many shopkeepers, particularly those with small shops, will spend 15 minutes reporting a crime that almost invariably will not end in a prosecution. Will the Minister look at introducing a national scheme for reporting shoplifting, where retailers can quickly access a dedicated platform and report crime in just a few minutes? No one wants to watch people walking out of a shop without paying for goods or, indeed, racing down the footpath on an e-scooter. It unsettles everyone, leaves the most vulnerable feeling unsafe and chips away at our collective sense of security.

I hope the Minister will welcome suggestions and inputs from all sides when we come to discuss the Bill.

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

I am grateful for the contributions of both His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I reassure the House that we will have plenty of opportunity to discuss these matters because this Statement, in effect, trails legislation that will come into effect at a later date, if passed by both Houses. So we will consider it over the next few weeks and months.

I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, is against anti-social behaviour. I would expect nothing less of him. It is a shame that when in office his party reduced the number of PCSOs by 55% since 2010. It is a shame that confidence in policing fell by 65% when he was at the Home Office and his colleagues were in office. It is a shame that trust in policing fell by 69% over the same period. It is a shame that shop theft, which the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, raised, has risen by 29% over the past year. It is a shame that the former Minister refused to implement suggestions that we will bring forward in the Bill on shop theft and attacks on shop workers. It is a shame that he took 14 years to reinstate the number of police officers in service when he took office in 2010. When I was Police Minister—

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I was not the Minister.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I do not blame the noble Lord personally. He carries the collective weight of the Conservative Government of the last 14 years on his shoulders. He may not like that, but he is in front of me now and he has to account for the Government he supported in Parliament, in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, as I have to account for this Government.

I will be helpful to the noble Lord. He talked about respect orders. The respect order will be introduced through the crime and policing Bill when it comes before this House and the House of Commons in the new year. We expect to pilot respect orders once the legislation is passed so that we can learn lessons from them. We expect that they will be introduced for persistent adult offenders involved in public drinking, drug use or other anti-social behaviour—that goes to some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. The orders will be targeted at individuals involved in persistent anti-social behaviour as a whole.

I will answer the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, then return to those of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, shortly. The courts must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that an offence has occurred. The same legal tests will be in place as those that are in place now for civil injunction policies. The police and local authorities can apply for respect orders. The pilot scheme will be a chance to look at and, I hope, iron out some of the issues that might be raised. It is for the courts to determine how to handle someone who breaches an order; that could mean a community sentence or a jail sentence. We are trying to look at prison places generally; I will return to that point.

The noble Baroness asked the important question of whether this will criminalise homelessness. I hope I can genuinely reassure her that being homeless in itself will not be treated as anti-social behaviour. That would be the case if there were aggravating factors, such as alcohol or misbehaviour of some sort, but simply being homeless would not be a qualifying factor for a respect order.

Respect orders are different from civil injunctions because they are aimed at higher levels of anti-social behaviour. The important point is that the police will be able to undertake those orders very quickly—if the Bill is passed by both Houses. Again, there will be an opportunity for us to debate these matters in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned the early release of prisoners and asked whether respect orders would be effective if a prisoner committed a further offence. Let me tell the noble Lord: if a prisoner on licence committed a further offence, they would not need a respect order; they would be back in prison very quickly as a result of breaching the licence conditions for which they were released early.

If the noble Lord reflected carefully on this he would know that, were he was standing where I am standing now, he would be defending a government policy for limited early release of prisoners to give space. Dare I say it, the noble Lord’s Government did not build prison places during their time in office. Again, I do not wish to hang 14 years of policy and decisions entirely on his shoulders but he has to take responsibility. When he asks for things from this Government, he has to reflect on the fact that there were things he and his Government did not do when they were in office. Indeed, they left us with a black hole to deal with, as well as these issues.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, welcomed our proposals on shoplifting actions and shop theft, as I prefer to call it, and the change to the £200 limit. She may be interested to note that, when I was the shadow Minister in another place 10 years ago, I opposed the order that introduced the £200 limit for the very reasons why we are now removing it. It sent a signal that low-value shoplifting and shop theft can be tolerated. That will not lead the police to look at the issue she mentioned. The 29% rise in shoplifting in just the last year of the previous Government is an indication that we need to take action, and we will.

We will also take action on the important issue the noble Baroness mentioned of protection for shop workers, and the creation of an aggravated offence in the event of shop workers being attacked. Shop workers deserve our respect. They often uphold legislation on alcohol sales, solvent sales, knife sales, tobacco sales and other sales. When they are subject to anti-social behaviour, there should be consequences for those individuals who engage in that behaviour. Her suggestion on how we record those incidents is interesting; we will explore that during the passage of the legislation.

The 13,000 neighbourhood police officers that the Government intend to put in place will be funded by additional resources. Half a billion pounds was announced last week, so the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will now be aware of the extra funding that he asked about. Again for the benefit of the noble Lord’s checklist, another £260 million was announced last week. More money will be announced during the first two weeks of December for a proposed police settlement, which will be out for consultation for the year after. It is extremely important we take action on shoplifting.

Finally, the noble Baroness mentioned e-bikes. One plan in the legislation—so it has to go through both Houses—is to give police powers to seize e-bikes and other bicycle-type machinery involved in anti-social behaviour. I regard riding an e-bike on a pavement as anti-social.

I want to make noble Lords aware of an important difference in this legislation regarding the police’s ability to take action. At the moment, police can take action on these issues but they have to give a warning. The proposals in the legislation will remove the need for a warning, so that if somebody is riding an e-bike or, indeed, an off-road bike in an anti-social way, that bike can be seized immediately, with consequences for the individual.

I welcome the welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I hope that, in due course, the House will scrutinise but welcome these proposals.

Asylum Seekers: Wethersfield

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for the question. We are cognisant of the pressures on individuals at the site. There is a regular meeting between the police, agencies, local councils and others to assess the needs on site, and we had some external reports which the Government have responded to positively. I take on board his points; the Government’s position is to try to resolve those. Individuals spend a maximum of nine months at the centre before being dispersed, and I hope that will help with the issues raised by the right reverend Prelate.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it is deeply disturbing that the Government have broken a manifesto commitment by opening new asylum hotels, such as the one in Altrincham. Can the Minister tell this House how many new asylum hotels are being opened, or are scheduled to be opened, and how local concerns are being addressed in decision making?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question; there is a net increase of seven so far. The Government’s manifesto commitment is to reduce the use of hotels and get rid of them in full during this Parliament. We are doing that by increasing the volume of asylum processing. There were 10,000 processed this month, compared with 1,000 a month when the noble Lord was in office. Since July 5, we have removed 9,400 people by deportation—a 19% increase since the noble Lord was in office. I think he needs to reflect on the fact that we have had four months in office and we have made an impact. We have closed “Bibby Stockholm”, decommissioned Scampton, put in place a £700 million saving on the Rwanda scheme and put in place new border security to stop boats in the first place. Please will noble Lord reflect on that and give credit to this Government for their actions?

Police Reform

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, having spent 32 years as a detective officer investigating crime in the police, I never thought I would ask this question, but does the Minister agree that it is important that police spend their time actually investigating crime, not policing thought? Will he agree to change the guidelines urgently on non-crime hate incidents?

Counter-Extremism Strategy

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, my noble friend tempts me to produce the outline of the review’s conclusions. But we genuinely take this issue seriously. When I was a Member of Parliament, a constituent of mine in a small village in north Wales was badly attacked and injured by someone with a machete who was radicalised by Nazi philosophy online. That radicalisation is extremely important, and we need to look at how we build up the stability of individuals to resist that radicalisation and, as my noble friend said, stop that radicalisation at source. If it comes from outside this country, we need to take effective action through the security services and others to close it down. I will give my noble friend further information once the review is complete.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Following on from the last question, what steps are being taken to address the growing threat of online radicalisation, particularly among young people, and to hold tech platforms accountable for extremist content? In the context of online radicalisation, how are this Government ensuring effective co-ordination between departments, including the Home Office, the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice, in delivering the counter-extremism strategy?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the question and the way in which the noble Lord put it. Again, I am slightly constrained in outlining the conclusions of the review before it has been completed. But let me say to him that online extremism and online radicalisation, whatever forum they come from, are extremely important issues and will be a focus of government. Going back to the point my noble friend made earlier, we have to look at a cross-government strategy on this; what happens in communities through local government departments, for example, is as important in preventing radicalisation as what the Home Office and the security services do, and we need to be aware of that. When the conclusions are published and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has announced and opined on them, I will be able to report back to this House in more detail.