Ukraine (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)

Debate between Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Coaker

Thursday 6th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I speak not as an expert in any of the military or diplomatic matters that noble Lords have spoken about but as someone with some experience in security and a growing frustration with the lack of commitment from Governments on both sides to prioritise defence, which I think many in the country share. I agree that this is an excellent report; it was produced in September 2024, but in the past few weeks the skies have got darker rather than lighter, which only amplifies the conclusions the report draws rather than detracts from them.

I praise this Government for the major change of direction announced by the Prime Minister on 25 February, when he gave a date for the increase to 2.5% of GDP to UK defence, but that was for 2027 and then it will increase during the next Parliament to 3%. I do not believe it is inconsistent to both support that announcement and to say that I think it is too little and will not deliver fighting forces quickly enough for reasons that I hope to set out. I challenge whether 2.5% is growth. I think there is some evidence that it is in fact filling the gaps we have, rather than being the growth it is being portrayed as. I think that is inconsistent and does no one any favours.

My first concern is that we are not yet using clear language to explain to the public the danger that we and Europe are facing. It seems that we have tempered our approach until now in an attempt not to antagonise the bear at our door. The problem is that Russia has taken this as a sign of our weakness, not our strength. Churchill knew a little about how to motivate people and a country. He appealed to the emotions with a clear analysis, a plan of action and speeches that the public heard and understood. In that respect, I commend President Macron yesterday evening, who was starting to speak in a language that people may start to think is making a difference. This is genuinely not a political point. I think the public need to know that this will cost money, and it may yet cost lives.

I do not believe that people join our Armed Forced and entirely consider the decision. They may lose their life; they may lose their life chances or be left physically and psychologically diminished should they have to fight. They will fight for their countries, families and way of life if they feel that they must. Improved efficiency in our recruiting only makes the process quicker and cheaper. Politics can help it deliver people and fighters.

Ironically, since 2022, as Russia walked into Ukraine, our Armed Forces have got smaller, at a time when all our Governments had been saying they were getting bigger. People can see this inconsistency. This report makes clear that our industrial and economic base is unprepared to produce the armaments we need at the speed we require. The Government must help manufacturers fire the furnaces and they must know how much money will be spent on our defence, exactly what is needed and when. Then they can tool up, skill up and invest in research to defend our country, support our friends and defeat an enemy.

Many of the weapons systems have very long lead times of production. Just one example is the production of warships. The noble Lord, Lord West, is not here today; I guess that he would have talked about frigates—

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

I can feel his presence.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

We probably ought to name one of them after him. But they do not grow on trees; they do not arrive in do-it-yourself kits and Amazon has no Prime delivery options. It takes a while. We will also need strategic reserves of raw materials if we are going to build these things and make sure that we can deliver what we have promised.

I mention in passing one domestic issue, which should not be forgotten. It was alluded to a little earlier. Some of the home security will also need to be enhanced. Our police counterterrorist units presently focus on extreme Islamism and right-wing terrorism. They will, in the future, also have to concentrate on counterespionage. That is of course something that the security services do but, when it comes to action—somebody has to lock them up, put them before a court or do whatever we have to do—there will need to be significant resources following them around and, at some stage, taking them out.

I also remark on our special constabulary, which are another form of reserves. They are there for the police and there are fewer than 20,000 at the moment. If the police go to war, somebody has to backfill and that was their intention. They are volunteers; they are not paid. They are not an expensive option, but they can help. It means that those police officers who could be released, could be released quicker.

As of today, we have not started any order processes, as far as I am aware. It will not be until at least the summer after the defence review by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. I want to put a challenge in here because the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, made this point and I thought it was a really good one. We are waiting for the review from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, which of course is sensible. I just worry, is there not some military leader in this country who knows already what we need? Surely somebody knows that we need to double the tanks, triple the Navy or whatever else. The defence review can pull this together but, if we are waiting for another three or four months, that will then be the start of a very long procurement process others have already alluded to. I worry that, if we take too many things in incremental, logical, stepped phases, others will speed past us. We know who we are talking about in that respect.

Russia has already invaded Ukraine, and it obviously threatens Moldova and Lithuania, so I ask the Government this: when will they press the procurement button for all the reasons everybody has talked about today because there will be a time lag when we decide to do it? It is time to send a symbolic message to Russia. Poland did: it is building an army, a military, of 300,000. Announcing 3% in three years is not a very strong message to me. What is ours? I have not heard it yet. Even when we have spent this money, what is it going to do? The time for gentle prose has passed. The time for action has started. This report is about the events in Ukraine, but it is really about the defence of the UK. I think we have heard enough to know that we need to do something now.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Code A) Order 2022

Debate between Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Coaker

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I support broadly targeting those convicted of carrying knives, because it seems to follow the evidence we have. Repeat offenders, repeat locations and repeat victims often disproportionately contribute to the amount of crime, particularly with people who carry knives. Not everybody who is violent carries knives, but those who do repeatedly carry them, so it is not a bad idea to target them. In fact, the obverse of what is being said about without-cause stop/search is that this gives a reason to stop/search—namely, that the person has been convicted in a court of carrying a knife or being associated with somebody carrying a knife.

As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, mentioned, the Police Federation of England and Wales objected to this proposal, or at least made some arguments counter to it. I am quite surprised by that, because the arguments it makes are also against Section 60 stop/searches. Section 60 orders are put in place in a certain area to target repeat locations and allow stop/searches to be carried out without cause. A similar dilemma is that nobody knows where these areas are until a police officer stops you and says you are in one, which has always for me been a reason why we should have better ways of communicating those areas to people who may be stopped in them. However, the principle of without-cause stop/search has been there for a long time.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that this is not the answer, but I think it is part of an answer. It seems reasonable to target those who repeatedly carry knives or are likely to carry knives, having been warned by a court that they should not. They have been given an order and told not to, so it is reasonable to check whether they are keeping to that order.

I am not in a position to comment on the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, or the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on whether a promise was made about how this power would be extended, but I imagine that one of the challenges will be with those areas adjacent to the four pilot areas—where the line is drawn on a map according to 1974 local government boundaries and often county boundaries. People who wander between villages across a county line cannot be policed on the other side of it if they have an order in place elsewhere, such as in the place where they live—let us say they are in a village just on the other side of a court boundary. It would be an odd conclusion that the adjacent forces to Sussex, West Midlands, Thames Valley and Merseyside would not be able to police these orders and that, in principle, people could wander over the border, carry a knife and not suffer the same consequences.

I agree that identification is important. Officers should be able to identify the people who have these orders. If they stop them and say, “Who are you?”, they indicate that they do not know the person has an order, but there are ways around that. Markers for ground vehicles can be put on the police national computer. Specific intelligence can be shared if people are wandering between, say, various nightclubs or areas, so that local officers know who they are. That can be managed.

My final point is that I was a little surprised by the selection of the pilot areas and that London was excluded. My experience, having policed in South Yorkshire, Merseyside and London, is that where stop/search has been a problem—and it has been—that has often been in London. Frankly, in the rest of the country, the volume is low and the problem is not of the same nature. If you talk to anybody in Merseyside or South Yorkshire, you just do not hear that this is a particular problem. I am not saying that it is not a problem, but it is not of the order that we see in London.

London has seen the sus laws of the 1960s and Section 44 of the Terrorism Act in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, and now Section 60 carries its own problems. When I took over in 2011, we discovered that Section 60 orders had, I am afraid, been scattered like confetti around London and something needed to be done. London’s experience of stop/search has been of stop/search without cause, but it is completely different from the rest of the country, so I wonder how much we can take from the experiments in Merseyside, West Midlands, Thames Valley and Sussex that could carry over easily to the London environment. People may not be persuaded by that. That is something the Government might want to consider as the pilots progress; if London is excluded, the evidence may not be as powerful in future.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who made some important and interesting points. I agree with many of them and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

The Chamber will wish to know that we did not oppose the Motion for this pilot in the other place, but there are also important points that I wish to pose to the Minister to add to those made by the noble Lords, Lord Paddick, Lord Moylan and Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in another sense, in that this also gives us in this Chamber the opportunity to discuss knife crime, which is clearly an important matter.

We are all horrified by knife crime and the horrific murders, sometimes of young people by other young people, in the most shocking of circumstances—in full public view. Can the Minister start by telling us what the latest figures actually tell us with respect to knife crime? I looked for them before this debate, and some are impacted by the pandemic or use different years as a baseline. What are the actual official figures for knife crime and knife-related murder, and not just in London but across the country? Clearly, whatever the figures are, they are too high, and the fundamental question for this debate is how serious violence reduction orders are expected to help. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, made the point that knife crime prevention orders were backed as the answer to tackle knife crime back in 2019. They have not even started yet. Why is that, and when will they start?

On the issue of disproportionality, the pilot is for two years. However, supposing that problems emerge around disproportionality before the two years—a point the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made—is there a mechanism for an earlier review within that two-year period to look at data as it emerges? The Minister in the other place says he is open to this. What does that mean: an interim review after, say, six months, or a year? What does the Government being “open to looking at this” mean?

Can the Minister explain the transition period of six months and how that will work in practice? In particular, how will it impact on an individual given such an order as regards its length? Are all orders for only a six-month duration or just those issued on the last day of the two-year pilot, hence the six-month transition period? It is not clear to me at all, because if you are given an SVRO on the last day of the two years, it can last only for a maximum of six months. If you are given it on the first day of the two-year period, can you be given it for two years, or two years and six months, or can you be given it for six months, then another six months and another six months? Some clarity about who can and cannot be given SVROs is needed.

On the issue of territorial extent, the SVROs will be able to be used only in the four areas—the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made a good point about how the areas were chosen, why certain other areas were not and why the number four was alighted on, and I think the Chamber could do with some explanation of that from the Government. These four areas are the areas where the orders can be given but, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, mentioned, the concern is that the police power will be applied across England and Wales. How will the data be shared by these four areas with forces across the country? What about Scotland? If somebody who is subject to such an order went to Scotland, what happens with respect to that? How will a police officer be able to know that the individual is subject to an order? Again, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan- Howe, made that point, although I understand that his point was that you would expect it to be on the police database and shared in that way. However, it would be interesting to see how that will work and what the Government’s response would be.

In other debates, we have talked about stop and search, including whether only a uniformed officer can use this power; again, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has made this point forcefully before. With respect to this order, can only a uniformed officer use this stop and search power—particularly given that, as noble Lords will appreciate, it is stop and search that can be done without suspicion? How many officers have now received the College of Policing training on stop and search, and will they be updated with respect to this order?

On the question of pilots, can the Minister look at ensuring that, if, for whatever reason, a future pilot contains one part that is focused on a small number of areas and another part that is to be applied nationally, this is clearly explained—particularly in this case where, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, have pointed out, this pilot came about as a result of a concession made by the Government because of the concerns about serious violence reduction orders raised by many noble Lords?

Can the Minister say something to inform us how this pilot will be evaluated by Ecorys? How is it going to do that? What criteria is it going to use to determine whether this pilot has been successful? Will it be fully independent of government? Also, are the Government open to the fact that these pilots may fail and not work? In those circumstances, would the Government be prepared to say that they will not carry on with them? The evaluation is particularly important given the concerns around disproportionality with respect to gender and ethnicity. If the evaluation shows that there are problems, the Government should consider other measures.

We all want to tackle knife crime, whatever its level; there is no difference between us on that. There are real issues for us as a society to deal with, as the Minister in the other place said. I want to point out one statistic that the Minister in the other place used so that noble Lords can see how difficult this is, whatever the level of knife crime. He said that

“young black people are 24 times more likely to be murdered using a knife than those from other communities.”—[Official Report, Commons, Ninth Delegated Legislation Committee, 13/12/22; col. 8.]

We all want something to be done about that. We all accept that that figure is too high. The issue for the Government is how on earth knife crime prevention orders are going to tackle that and other issues related to knife crime across the country. Can the Minister say what else the Government are doing to tackle this problem?

We have this new order alongside other orders designed to tackle knife crime and serious violence. We all hope that they work. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and others pointed out, targeting hot spots, having police on the streets in neighbourhoods, prevention, community engagement and support are also crucial. Many lives, often very young ones, are still being lost. Many families are still affected. Many communities are still affected. Orders such as this one may help, but they must be part of a wider ongoing effort by the police and communities if they are to have the impact that we all want.