Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I broadly support the Bill, as there is an awful lot in it to be commended. I would not agree with everything that the Liberal Democrats have said about access to more data, certainly not facial recognition, but I think that there are some steps in the right direction. Of course, the nature of a Second Reading is to highlight the things that you would have preferred to be in the Bill rather than things that are in it.

My first point is about what I feel is a missed opportunity to set out a strategic direction, partly for the criminal justice system and certainly for the police. We have not embedded anything about prevention as a strategic direction in the way that fire brigades have. We have not said much about police professionalism and how that might be developed. Finally, there is the use of technology, and how we set a strategic framework in which that will develop. That is a genuine missed opportunity.

Of the four areas that I want to highlight and which I shall push in Committee for recognition, the first concerns firearms officers. First, I acknowledge that the development around the anonymity of officers is welcome, although I confess that on occasion I have thought that actually they should be named, because accountability is very important. But this development is a good one, and I support it. This group of brave men and women, 3,500 of them, who protect 69 million of us, who are the only ones who can go forward on our behalf and deal with the people they have to deal with, are, I am afraid, not receiving a good deal at the moment.

This week, the officer who shot and killed Jermaine Baker in 2015 was told that he had no case to answer in a misconduct process—after 10 years. He was never at risk of a criminal charge, but 10 years later—that cannot be right. So there is something about timeliness there, but the law also ought to offer more generosity and sympathy to the officer in the first place. We do that for householders who protect themselves and kill someone in their home; they are in a unique group—so why does this unique group not have any similar protection? It is about having a higher bar before prosecution is considered, not immunity. No one is arguing for that—accountability is essential. But something must happen in that area, and as yet it has not.

My second area is cycling. I have tried to get some amendments into this Bill, because it is time that cyclists have more accountability too. Insurance would not be a bad idea, along with the opportunity to have points on their licence, if they have a driving licence, should they commit offences, and registration marks to identify them—and even licences for the people who ride bikes. The Public Bill Office tells me that it is out of scope, but I cannot understand that, because obviously there are measures on dangerous cycling that the Government have brought forward, which I support. But it will be no use having them if you cannot identify the person who did it—so I suggest that there is a possibility to consider future developments in this Bill.

My third point is around the suicide of police officers. The Police Federation is concerned that the number of police officers and staff committing suicide over the years is increasing, but it is having real difficulty getting hold of the data, either about those who have committed suicide or those who have attempted it. It recently had a survey in which only 41 forces replied; two of the biggest forces in the country, including the biggest, did not reply, so the federation is struggling to get hold of the data. It would like to see a legal duty to ensure that the data is collected, first, and then if there is a problem how big it is and where the themes are that might enable more prevention to take place.

My final point is about the indirect consequences in terms of historical offensive weapons. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has done some work on this, but there is more to do to make sure that those who have historical weapons are not captured under the offensive weapon debate. The couriers who carry these things are now withdrawing from the market, meaning that very few people are carrying weapons or things such as scissors—and that means that we will have a real problem soon if we do not consider that indirect impact.

Police: Vetting, Training and Discipline

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a very important point. Going back to the question from the noble Viscount, leadership—understanding performance and showing leadership—is extremely critical. The Home Office is this year funding the College of Policing to look at ongoing support for police leadership, and we have given £2.6 million this year to do that. We have also set, and are examining still with the College of Policing and with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, national leadership standards. We will continue to work with the college to ensure that we improve standards of police training. That goes from chief constables down and I certainly endorse the comments that the noble Lord made.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, first, the noble Lord, Lord Bird, made an interesting point and, although I support the Minister’s response about class, to get more people from different classes to aspire to be police leaders would be helpful, because that is not often the answer we receive from children and other people in the working-class group. Some appalling behaviour was seen. In the review that has been suggested, one of the important things is, obviously, to get rid of these people as quickly as possible, which the commissioner has said that he wants to do. Would the review please take seriously the option of changing from a constable status to that of an employee? Police employment regulations, which are secondary legislation, frankly delay everything and put lawyers into the system, which slows it down, and then they still have an opportunity to access an employment tribunal, should they be able to allege improper prejudice. Will the Minister please take seriously the option of having employee status, as they do in New Zealand?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is an interesting suggestion from the noble Lord, who has great experience in this field, given his previous role as Metropolitan Police Commissioner. I can assure him that the 10 officers involved in this incident are having an expedited hearing. I think the evidence is very strong. I cannot determine the outcome: that is for the IOPC. Ultimately, I will examine his suggestion again. I think the key thing is that, if incidents such as this occur, they are expedited as quickly as possible and lessons are learned, but also that strong messages are sent that the type of behaviour in the “Panorama” exposé is simply not acceptable in the 21st century from any police officer.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Having put those concerns on the record, which I hope the Minister can deal with, the thrust of her amendment is very good, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. She has been consistent in arguing for this with various Governments, and I would like to be consistent in my support for her.

As the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said, this is essentially an amendment about standards rather than the method of delivery. From the very beginning, the noble Baroness has made the point that where it is vital we get consistency of language or the written word, we ought to be able to rely on translation where English is not the first language. I have to say that my experience of policing is that English is not that precise at the best of times. With the police or others, it is sometimes quite hard to determine exactly what people have said.

Particularly important here is that the list in the amendment is of rights and expectations that people rely on for the system to be fair. We rely on understanding, in language, what we have been asked to do and what we may be unable to do in the future. This also allows the individual to ask questions. One of the things that underpins human rights law, which we all debate at times, is that the individual’s rights and responsibilities should be protected against the state. The state can be an overwhelming and powerful thing at times; all of us need rights to argue our case when we potentially come into conflict with it.

Language can be precise, but it is also very nuanced at times—sometimes by dialect, and sometimes by different languages. It is vital that we all understand that we are talking about the same thing in any judicial, tribunal or other procedure where our rights are going to be affected. This is all the amendment arguing for. To the point of the noble Lord, Lord Harper, it is not arguing for extra rights; it is just saying that where you have a right, you should be able to make your argument.

Probably as importantly, the amendment first enables the individual to understand what is involved in the process, what the outcome is going to be and what their rights are. Secondly, it enables them to understand the questions they are being asked. Finally, it enables them to provide an answer which is accurate and understood. I do not think it is asking any more than that.

I acknowledge that there may be a cost, as the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said. In fact, the police service has quite a good system, because in the criminal process, when you run the risk of the sanction of being imprisoned, it is vital that you are represented and understood well. The police have developed a system with some good standards, but there is a cost. As migration has increased over the years, that cost has significantly increased. In a city like London, around 38% to 40% of the people arrested are foreign national offenders, and often, language can become an issue. That is not unrepresentative of London; it is just a fact that this is what London is like.

The rising cost of migration and the changes it brings mean that we sometimes have to change our process. This is a vital part of it; it is about setting standards. You could say that it is hard to imagine why the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, had to make this argument. It is hard to understand why you have to argue for a—presumably significant—standard to make sure people understand what they are involved in. We might imagine it already exists, but I am afraid it does not. That is why this amendment is vital, and I support it.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I absolutely support the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, in this matter. I draw upon my own experience of 11 years in a bilingual Parliament, the Senedd Cymru: without accuracy or professional translators, it would undoubtedly have been difficult to create the laws we passed during those 11 years.

Accuracy and clarity are critical. There is of course a cost to doing it properly, as the noble Lord, Lord Harper, rightly says. However, if it is not done properly, it will end up in the courts, and legal aid and various other factors will be involved. I do not agree with the noble Lord that you should not face the cost, because that cost may be displaced over the time.

I will wait for the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, to reply on AI assistance, but there is a big difference between people hearing what is said exactly and reproducing it in exactly the same way it is being spoken. When someone speaks, the interpreter and translator translate those words exactly as they were said. That is the important issue here.

I want to tempt the Minister to talk about the learning of the English language, which is of course associated with this. There is undoubtedly a real problem in providing sufficient language courses to help people get an experience of the English language. Do the Government have any ambitions to improve the teaching of English to people coming here on the migration route?

As for the reason for this amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, we should not be putting ourselves at risk by not having it.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has indicated, everything has been said—but, obviously, not yet by me. For me, it is a simple matter of choice. I support this Bill. It is a choice to end your life at a time of your choosing, when all hope of survival has gone; a choice to ensure that your passing is peaceful and controlled; and a choice, as far as possible, that it occurs where you would prefer, with or without the people you choose to be present.

At the moment, people have that choice, as people have mentioned, to travel to a jurisdiction in which it is legal, but that choice is hampered by conditions. If you wish to travel to Switzerland, you will need to be able to afford a ticket and, if you are in prison, you will not be able to travel at all. You will probably need someone to accompany you and help with the arrangements, and those people need to risk an investigation and prosecution. It is not about whether the prosecution takes place; it is about the investigation that you are under and the family who are affected for the time that it takes to decide that you have not committed an offence. Finally, something that has not been mentioned too often is the fact that you need to be well enough to travel. Of course, illnesses progress, and not always at the rate at which medical people expect, so it can remove that possibility at a time when you most need it.

If those three conditions are not met—if you are poor, alone or already extremely ill—you do not have that choice. Why do only the rich and the well enough to travel have a choice? That cannot be right. Even for those fortunate enough to travel, they have to end their life in a foreign place, which is clinical, cold and anonymous, when they could have been at home, in the home they have enjoyed, surrounded by the people they love and the animals they probably regard as family.

Those who oppose this Bill say that better palliative care should remove the need for assisted dying. I do not accept that, because there have been too many cases where palliative care did not work. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, in particular, who said that we should have far more palliative care. There is an irony that, while 100,000 people do not have that opportunity, they are probably more in need of this option. To sit in a room and say to them, “We can’t ease your pain, but we might provide more palliative care in the future, but that is probably five to 10 years away”, is hardly a conversation that I would like to have with the people affected by it. Each one of us might want to imagine that we have to have that conversation, because that is the power that we hold in our hands. For me, it is not for doctors to say what a dignified, pain-free death is; it is for the person who is suffering that trauma to decide when enough is enough.

It is said that people may be induced or pressurised to go early. I am afraid that the risk of that outcome is already with us. If anybody imagines that no one is being pressurised at home to go early, they are naive. However, this provides the possibility that someone could intervene, should that be happening against someone’s will, and gives an option that might provide a better end than someone is anticipating.

People could of course take their own life, and I have seen people take their own life when all hope is lost. It is not attractive; they are not in control and they usually do it in a way that affects many other people. Then, of course, their families are left with all the uncertainty and pain that that can bring to them, when they have not been there or had the opportunity to make sure it is a far better end.

I will mention something very briefly. Once or twice today, I have heard people say that suicide is wrong. That is the underpinning of why we used to say that attempted suicide was a criminal offence. I do not think it is wrong. It may not be the best end for anybody, but I understand why people come to that conclusion. It is a very brave decision for those who make it and I do not think we are right to say it is a wrong thing.

Finally, we are told that 80% of the population support this Bill, and that matches my own polling with people I meet. This is a moment of conscience for all of us to vote according to our best judgment. However, that does not mean that anyone should try to stop the progress of this Bill by procedural mischief or interminable debates. If the Bill is voted down, that is what democracies do. It would be very unwise and unfair to prevent the opportunity for this vote.

So I support the Bill. The time has come to be more humane to the dying, and this Bill achieves a humane solution to the most awful problems at the end of our time on Earth.

Debate adjourned until Friday 19 September.

Gaza Protests: Anti-terrorism Legislation

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend and I have worked in Northern Ireland and on terrorism-related issues. If he received a report from the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre saying that Palestine Action had met a threshold for terrorist activity, I doubt very much that he would not have signed that order as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary did. We have done that because Palestine Action has already had people convicted of not just criminal damage but intimidation and physical threats. There are cases about which I cannot comment that are before the courts; there are allegations around a range of other behaviours and there is strong evidence from JTAC about underground cells and plots against defence organisations and others.

Again, if people wish to hold up a placard saying, “I support Palestine Action”, that is an offence under the terms of the terrorism prevention order that we have. People are sometimes mistaken in their conflation of support for Palestine and support for Palestine Action. That is where the dividing line should be.

My noble friend says that we should concentrate on neighbourhood policing, shoplifting and other things. I just say to him that ensuring 13,000 new police officers will be on the beat over these four years, introducing measures on shop theft in the Crime and Policing Bill and conducting a drive to tackle anti-social behaviour are all things that this Government are doing. But we in this House and in this Government have a duty to protect our citizens against terrorism activity. When we get advice that this threshold has been crossed, it would be irresponsible of me and other members of the Home Office Ministerial team to ignore it.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, a Labour MP recently commented that the people who have been arrested were not, in fact, supporting terrorism but objecting to the prohibition of the group. This is a very fine distinction for the police to try to make on the streets. Surely we should all be supporting the police because, after all, this is a logical consequence of prohibiting the group and having a law to make sure that support for terrorism is illegal, which was passed by this place and another. The Government must have considered that this group had some mass support for its general intent, if not its methods. This is one of the consequences that the police will have to try to resolve, and we all need to support them until this matter is resolved politically.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The police are acting extremely professionally, and I am grateful for their support on this matter. I assure the House that it is not an offence to say, “I wish to see the Palestine Action proscription overturned”. People can hold a placard saying that, but they cannot say, “I support Palestine Action”. In the same way, because of the tests that have been made under this legislation, they cannot say, “I support Hamas”.

I hope the police will exercise their discretion and examine those issues, and the CPS will do the same, but under the legislation there has to be a clear line in the sand. The JTAC assessment to Ministers was that this line had been crossed. Therefore, we have had to take action. I will continue to support the police in their difficult task of interpreting that action in an executive way, which it is not my responsibility to do.

Nitrous Oxide Misuse: Drivers

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with what the Minister just said; it would be wise for the police to look into that. Can he also consider looking at the retail supply of nitrous oxide? Every year, I used to go Notting Hill Carnival, where the floor was littered with small canisters. They have only one or two legal uses: to blow up balloons and, I believe, for whipped cream. My point is that the supply of it far outweighs those two uses; I do not think that there are that many people filling balloons or creating whipped cream. It might not be a bad idea for retail outlets to be checked for the volumes they are selling, because it must be going to kids. There must be some people buying very large amounts, which they are then selling on. I know that sometimes we all plead for more law, but the retailers and manufacturers—because it is not easy stuff to produce and put into canisters—may also be encouraged to take further action themselves.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an interesting point about downstream supply. I refer back to the legislation currently in place: it is an offence to possess, use, traffic or supply nitrous oxide in its current form. That is very broad legislation which gives specific powers to police to investigate the type of issue that the noble Lord mentioned. For example, if there were in any particular community excessive use of nitrous oxide, canisters spread all over the place, dens being used and/or trafficking using balloons, my advice—although I cannot give it directly to the police—would be that they might wish to investigate that, with the extra neighbourhood policing support we have given. They could then identify where the supply was coming from and take action, because supplying it is an offence.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, as well as those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. Throughout our debates, one thing has become clear: Clause 23 is one of the more troubling areas for the business community and therefore potential employees. That concern is reflected not just in what we have heard in this Chamber but in the Government’s own impact assessment.

When a company hires someone new, it takes a risk. No matter how impressive someone’s CV may be or how well they come across in interview, things do not always work out, as we have heard. That is why probation periods exist. They give both the employer and the employee a chance to assess whether it is the right fit. I have seen this at first hand in my own company, Marsh Ltd. For small businesses in particular, hiring someone new, especially during a period of growth, can be a major financial and operational commitment. When things do not work out, the company should not be left to carry all the burden because of a mismatch that is no one’s fault. Introducing a day-one right to claim unfair dismissal outside the already established exceptions places a heavy weight on employers. It could discourage them from hiring altogether. Worse still, it may lead to pressure being placed on existing staff, who are asked to do more because their employers are hesitant to take on new people.

In the Financial Times, the Chancellor said an excessive safety-first approach was not seen in any of Britain’s global competitors, adding:

“It is bad for businesses, bad for growth and bad for working people”—


a description of this Bill and Clause 23 in particular. These amendments offer a sensible middle ground. They would reduce the current qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection from two years to six months. That strikes me as fair and proportionate. It matches the length of the probation period used in many companies, and certainly in the one I work for. Six months should be enough time to determine whether someone is right for the role. These amendments would make it better for business, better for growth and better for working people. That is why I support them.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. It seems to be a reasonable change to get rid of the two years, and I think six months is a more reasonable representation. My question, though, is about how this will affect police officers.

Police officers are not employees. Their terms and conditions are governed by secondary legislation or police regulations. It is already quite difficult to remove the ones who should be removed because, first, they are represented by lawyers—I say this with all respect to the lawyers in the room—in the misconduct process. It never makes it quicker, and it always makes it more expensive. Secondly, when the assessment is made of whether the proof is there to sack them, the test of the standard of evidence is moved from the balance of probabilities to beyond reasonable doubt. That is the same standard for criminal proof, so it is quite a high standard, and they are represented by a lawyer. It gets quite difficult.

The two-year probationary period has always been a good way to remove those people who should be removed or who are not suited to the role. If we are to remove that two-year period, one of the measures by which we get rid of the worst officers will be lost, and I worry about that. We know from research that often the officers who turn bad later should have been removed in their probationary period, had everyone had the courage to take that decision.

I am not saying that it is wrong or right, nor that the police regulations should definitely change, but I would like to understand what the Government’s reaction is. We will have a group of people who are not classed as employees—police officers—who will still have a two-year period and, under the new scheme, might have none at all. This is a group I think we should pay particular attention to. Perhaps the Government might give their view on how they intend to deal with that.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I will begin with an explanation. When I supported the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in Committee, there was concern about a risk assessment that said that if there was no probation period, it would be quite difficult for some employers to take people on. The same question was then posed, rather more sharply, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips: would you employ an ex-offender if there was no probation period at all? That little sentence requires probing.

Last time, I began with apprenticeships. In particular, I spoke about a young man called Oscar, who has been taken on by one of our best plumbers in Berwick, and I said that I hoped he qualifies. I was about to move on to the actual amendment when I said that, when Oscar finishes his apprenticeship, he will have an interview with his current employer and some other people, and that if he passes that interview he will be expected to serve a period of probation, and that this wonderful plumber would not be likely to retain Oscar if there was no probation period. That is where I was going to end. It is right that we remove the two-year qualifying period, which is too long, but I am not so sure that it should be nine months.

In the Church of England, no cleric is an employee because they are all self-employed. I remember a wonderful case where someone complained about a bishop for something they had said to this particular clergy, who had gone to a tribunal after a series of reviews that showed that he was not competent in what he was doing. At the end of the hearing, the clergy was told that he was suing the bishop but that the bishop was not his employer—his employer was God. He was told that if he could bring God into this, he could sue him because he was self-employed and answerable only to God.

We have lived without this worry, but the more I have worked with a lot of people and become a trainer for some, the more I have realised that, if we remove the probation period, we are going to find ourselves in a very difficult situation. The people who are more likely to miss out are young people who need some mentoring and support, and who can be directed to different things.

I am not sure where this is coming from. There are, of course, bad employers, who like to dismiss people at the shortest notice. If we went for six or 12 months in the statute, most employers would abide by what they have taken on. Let us give a good word to employers and not think that all of them simply want you to get out as soon as you come in.

I support Amendments 49, 50 and 51. If all of them are put to a vote, I will be the first into the Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Wyld (Con)]

My Lords, I can add very little to what has been said, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I know that this House will be grateful to him for sharing a painful story. I took the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 through your Lordships’ House. It was a real honour to do so. As I have said, when I met the parents who were campaigning, they were not asking for the world—they appreciated the fact that businesses needed us to be proportionate as policymakers. Equally, they made a powerful case for the difference that that Act would make. I am hugely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for building on that Act, and to Hugh’s family for their briefing and campaigning. I assure her of my support in the Lobby tonight.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I confess that at the beginning I was a little sceptical, not so much about the amendment but about the issue that the Government and every previous Government have faced of trying to control the benefits bill. It is not easy and, as this Government have just discovered, trying to remove two existing benefits has proved incredibly difficult. We are trying to reduce the percentage of our GDP that we spend and it is not easy if we cannot control benefits. The winter fuel payment and the disability payments have proved just how challenging this is.

However, the amendment has my support because, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has explained very plainly, of the impact that this situation has on families, probably more on middle-income families who have less in savings than on other people. It is a relatively small amount of money—at £187, it is not a massive amount—but it could make a real difference to people who are already in the distressing situation of trying to care for their family while a child is in hospital. The total cost to the Exchequer is around £6 million to £8 million—it does not run into billions of pounds. It is something that we and the Government could support. The amendment certainly has my support in this change to help parents at a time that they most need it and when a child most needs it, too.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my good friend, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for bringing forward this amendment, which I proudly support. I am sure that I speak for everyone in the Chamber in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for sharing his experience in an unbelievably emotional and powerful speech.

There has been much debate of late, as we have heard today, about the size and scale of the welfare state. There needs to be reform, as I think everyone accepts. The welfare state should be tough—indeed, it should be tougher—but it must also be compassionate to those who need it. I have not had direct experience and cannot comprehend the pain and agony of people who have been told that their children are seriously ill and require palliative care. There is then the impossible decision, as the noble Baroness said, of what to do about work. My noble friend Lady Wyld talked about the work she did, as we all did, and the amazing advances in neonatal care. This proposal is the next logical step —it builds on what we have already done.

The campaign group It’s Never You has done research highlighting the impact on parents and children: almost 90% of parents had to reduce their working hours or leave employment, and almost 80% noted the understandable effects on their mental health. Many studies link a pro-family environment with benefits not only to families but to businesses by contributing to high employee satisfaction, reduced turnover and increased productivity.

I know that there are those who have concerns about the growing size of the state. While this amendment is noble in itself, there are three other things to consider for those who may perceive it to be yet another endless cost among many. One is that the provision should be time-limited, considering a specific period in a poor family’s life. Secondly, it should be tightly defined to cover only up to a certain age limit, and specific care. Thirdly, and crucially, as has already been said, it is for those who cannot afford not to work, who will working and contributing again when the time is right.

As the noble Baroness said, this proposal stems from the tragic case of a young boy called Hugh who, sadly, died at the age of six from a rare form of cancer. This amendment is thanks to his remarkable and in many ways heroic parents and their family, who have campaigned and gained such support across the country. Alas, as has been noted, since Committee hundreds of families will have been given the ghastly news about their children and suffered their own agony and pain.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Does the Minister concur with and endorse that view? If so, will he give some further consideration to whether any disapplication might occur that would not be in accordance with the commitments that we have entered into?

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, my Amendment 99 is not directly related to the previous amendments other than by the connection of biometric data. My question is about which database the biometric data is being checked against. The question comes from the briefing that was helpfully provided by the Minister and his advisers prior to the Bill being laid. At that briefing, I asked whether the databases were being checked for particular purposes, and the advice we received was that they could not be used by the police. I found that confusing when I re-read the Bill and saw that there is a law enforcement clause. The questions today are about whether the databases are being checked for these particular reasons.

If the people you are checking are entering for the first time, they should never have their data in these databases because they have never been to the UK. But, of course, many of the people who arrive, sometimes illegally, have been here before, have left and now are returning—so it is important to establish their identity first, obviously.

The databases that I am interested in are, first, the unsolved crime scene database. Crimes happen every day, samples are taken—DNA, fingerprints and sometimes photographs now—and, of course, not all crimes are solved. A database is kept of those crimes that are not solved, so is the biometric data of the people who are entering being checked against that?

The second group I am interested in is people who are wanted. They might be wanted in this country or in other countries. It may be that we choose not to let the third country know that this person has arrived, but at least we should know whether we are at risk of importing someone who is wanted somewhere else. This is probably quite important, given the group of countries that many of the people who are coming to our country are linked to. When many of our soldiers in Afghanistan were murdered and badly maimed by IEDs, we collected an awful lot of forensic material, which is now stored in this country in case we ever discover the people who carried out those crimes. It would certainly be ironic if somebody claimed to want to come to this country legally and had previously killed or maimed one of our soldiers—we should at least be aware of that. Are we checking this against that database?

This is quite a specific set of questions, but it relies on the data being checked. The advice we received at the briefing was that it was not. The purpose of this amendment is to get on record exactly what it is being checked against.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which have been so ably supported across the Committee—pretty much every voice so far has been in support of them. They are a very useful humanitarian mirror to arguments that have been made on the previous group about the importance of data sharing for law enforcement purposes.

Amendments 97 and 98, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, very much endorse the views of the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Alton, on the need for even more breadth and possibly a government amendment. These amendments are very sympathetic to the Government’s stated policy of smashing the gangs et cetera. It is a perverse outcome to hear that people who were trying to satisfy the Government’s legal and practical requirements for family reunion are having to resort to people smugglers. So, with respect, I hope that the Minister will see that this is a no brainer in terms of the practical facilitation of government policy.

Finally, I talked about these amendments being very much the humanitarian mirror of the need sometimes to share data—in this case, biometric information—for the purpose of giving effect to lawful family reunion. Please do not shoot the messenger, but I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Harper, that the Data Protection Act and the UK GDPR contain very broad law enforcement exemptions, but broad is not blanket. I hope I can say to Conservative noble Lords that it is one thing to have a broad law enforcement exemption, but another to have blanket immunity from data protection. I am sure that noble Lords opposite would not want, for example, data controllers to be negligent or not to maintain a secure system so that sensitive information, even about potential criminals, was dumped on the internet, easily hacked or simply negligently maintained. Data controllers, particularly public authority data controllers, and especially of sensitive information, should at least have to maintain a proper, secure system. Yes, data should be shared for law enforcement purposes where that is necessary and proportionate, but they should not be totally negligent with this information.

I hope that provides some reassurance on that issue. In any event, if it does not, the Minister has already said that he can write.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord brings great experience of the Foreign Office. He will know about this better than I do; I am a Home Office person rather than a Foreign Office person. I am trying to assure the House that, while the points that have been made are a fair challenge to the Government, we believe that the clause meets those obligations, providing flexibility and engagement with the International Organization for Migration, the UNHCR and others.

I mentioned Operation Pitting in Afghanistan in 2021. Some 15,000 people were evacuated and biometrics were collected post arrival in the United Kingdom. In the Sudan evacuation, just under 2,500 individuals were evacuated, with biometric checks taken in third-party countries such as Saudi Arabia. In Gaza, 250 British nationals were supported to exit and biometric checks were taken. The mechanism is there. I have had strong representations from across the Committee on this issue, but I am trying to explain the position of Clause 34. I hope that, with my comments, the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.

I have not forgotten the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who may want to intervene—he does want to, so I shall allow him to before I finally, I hope, wind up.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I thank the Minister. First, I am broadly reassured. There is just one area where I hope he might reassure himself and therefore me. I mentioned the Afghanistan IED material. It is probably difficult to talk about publicly, but if he could reassure himself that this biometric data had been checked against that database, I would be very reassured and that might help him too.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have given a broad description. The police have access to terrorist databases with information and biometrics generally. I think it best not to talk, at the moment, about specific databases. I believe the IED database that he mentioned is covered by the proposals, but I will check with my colleagues who have a responsibility for that, rather than inadvertently give the Committee information that proves subsequently not to be as accurate as I would wish.

With that, I would very much welcome the noble Baroness responding and withdrawing the amendment.

Electric Cycles: Illegal Use on Roads

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Hogan-Howe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage police forces across England and Wales to seize electric cycles being used illegally on roads.

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

My Lords, through the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government will amend Section 59 of the Police Reform Act to allow the police to seize any vehicle, including e-scooters, which are used in an antisocial manner, without having to first give a warning to the offender. The Government are also consulting on proposals to allow police more swiftly to dispose of seized vehicles. These actions, I believe, will send a clear message that anti-social use of any vehicle will not be tolerated.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I commend the new Government for taking some steps, but I do not think they have taken enough. Sergeant Ford, who sits here today, has a small team of 10 in the City of London Police—the smallest force in the country—who are actually doing something about cyclists who are ignoring the law, particularly on e-bikes. He and the courts class e-bikes that do not conform to the regulations as motor vehicles. Those who drive them on our roads without insurance get six points on their licence. When are the Government going to get a grip on this? Every day, we see cycles and e-bikes travelling at 30 or 40 mph on our streets, putting our pedestrians at risk, and it seems that our forces are doing nothing about it. I challenge the Government to do more.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I commend the City of London Police for its actions. The force covers a small geographical area, but it seized 325 e-cycles in 2024, which is a good thing. The noble Lord mentioned legislation; we have tabled several new offences to the Crime and Policing Bill, on causing death by dangerous cycling, causing serious injury by dangerous cycling, causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling and causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling. Those four new offences—if passed by this House and the House of Commons—will ensure that there are further measures in place that the police can enforce. There is no point in passing legislation if the police do not enforce it. I know, from my view of London every day, that there are people cycling dangerously and cycling in a way that will potentially cause injury. This legislation and the power to seize bikes will send a clear signal that we will not tolerate this.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, as we have heard already today, there are serious concerns in the country about the security of our borders. Of course, this is motivated by keeping ourselves safe, but it is also motivated by wanting to make sure that those who deserve to claim asylum and are refugees who want to travel here are able to use a fair system, that they have a good reception when they arrive and that we are able to plan for a larger population. I am afraid that, at the moment, I am not at all clear that we are managing migration in such a way that that we are able to plan for it in any great way. I will give a couple of examples of where this really matters.

I get increasingly frustrated in this place. Almost every day, we hear of a Government, this one or the previous, being blamed for things. That is the nature of politics but, just last week, we heard accusations that it was someone’s fault that nine more reservoirs are needed, and we have regular complaints about lack of housing and lack of electricity. There are many other things that we do not seem able to cope with.

I suspect that one reason is that our population has grown so quickly. When I took over the Met in 2011, the population of London was about 7.4 million; by the time I left, it was 8.4 million and, today, it is about 9 million. A significant number of the people who have come to the UK have ended up in our major economic centres, such as London. This is a very significant shift. Some of the symptoms of that growth were that, in places such as Newham, around 50,000 people were living in what are called “beds in sheds”. These places were not designed to hold people—they were garages that had things added on. When people are living in such conditions, you are just waiting for epidemics or other things to happen. I am afraid that, unless we plan well to make sure that all the facilities are there, everyone suffers. Probably those who suffer most are the migrants who arrive but who we did not anticipate in the way that we should have.

There are two major categories of migration in this country. The first is legal migration, which is allowing those who want to enter our country for economic reasons and asylum seekers or refugees who need our help. At some point, the previous Government got things a little wrong with legal migration because, by some of the measures that they took, legal migration went out of control and up to around 800,000. The noble Lord, Lord Green, mentioned at the time that some of the levers—it is not easy to predict how people will react to them—were probably set at the wrong level. The previous Government changed those levels, as mentioned earlier. This Government are now using those levers to make sure that legal migration is more under control.

This Bill, however, is about illegal migration and improving how we can stop it. I think it has some good ideas, but I am honestly not convinced that it is comprehensive, forensic or ruthless enough to deal with all the issues that we face now and will face in the coming years. I have four tests for this Bill to see whether it will improve the situation in which around 1,000 people a day have been seen to cross the channel to land on our south coast.

My first test is whether the Bill will deter people who have no right to be here from trying to get here. We have said that we do not want them to cross the border. At the moment, there are thousands of people each year who broadly say, “We do not respect your rules but are confident that, having crossed the border, we will not be removed”. I do not see any great change in this Bill that will affect their motivation.

My second test is what happens to people who have arrived here and been found to have no claim to remain, particularly where they have a criminal record. I have no confidence that those whom we wish to remove will be removed, even where they have a criminal record. Often in this country, we do not know the backgrounds of the people who are here, because we do not know their identity. Consequently, we are not very familiar with some of the things that they have done or been involved in, in the past.

My third test is whether the Bill will deter and detect those who commit organised crime and arrange for people to bypass the rules for profit. I see very little in the Bill that shows me that the Government will ruthlessly and massively go after the assets of the criminals. If we can take the profit from the business, we can exert some control. There are some incremental steps in the Bill, but it does not convince me that we will see more than marginal improvements in the seizure of criminals’ assets.

My fourth test is whether there is anything in the Bill that will allow the courts to distinguish better between valid and invalid claims for asylum. In particular, how will they either change the European Convention on Human Rights or its interpretation, which presently seems to give precedence to the failed asylum seeker or the convicted criminal against the rights of people who are properly using the legal system and the victims of crime?

In closing, I highlight a particular concern I have about the Bill. It has been mentioned already by the noble Lords, Lord Swire and Lord Browne. The Border Security Commander is, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, a misnomer. The Border Security Command has no people to command, and the organisations that do have people to command are not commanded by it. At best, it tries to co-ordinate those who have a duty to manage our borders, which includes the border agency, the immigration service, the National Crime Agency, security services and local police forces. Each of those organisations is accountable for its own actions. The commander cannot order them to take any particular action. I am not persuaded that the commander having a board, as proposed by the Bill, will make any difference to that.

The Government found their leadership voice today on defence. They made an excellent announcement about our future defence and sent a clear message to our enemies. Does this Bill send the same clear message to the organisers of illegal migration? I am not convinced that it does. It needs to speak clearly about the profit they are making and the fact that if they continue there will be a serious penalty. At least two or three noble Lords have mentioned that if the Government do not do that, people like Reform benefit, which does not benefit many people at all. Unless we get some better answers to some of the things that I and others have identified, that is the way it will go.